What are you reading now?

[Animavore]

Wow!

[Exi5tentialist]

Wow!

Thank you.

[anna09]

I liked both The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. I didn't think they were boring at all.

[Mr P]

I liked both The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. I didn't think they were boring at all.

The Selfish Gene is prpobably one of the most mis-represented titles in publishing history, it's one of those books everyone should read (irrespective of who wrote it).

[Exi5tentialist]

I liked both The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. I didn't think they were boring at all.

The Selfish Gene is probably one of the most mis-represented titles in publishing history, it's one of those books everyone should read (irrespective of who wrote it).

Don't get me wrong, I'm only talking about the title. If the book had been called, 'Some Observations on Genes', ie more scientific, I might at least have attempted the first chapter. But 'Selfish' is too much of a leap into human ethical philosophy for me to take it seriously enough to part with my money and time in favour of its author. What I know now about him rather confirms my original decision.

[Ronja]

When The Selfish Gene first came out, I can remember deciding not to read it on the basis of the title alone.

Really?

Of course, I had no idea who Richard Dawkins was...

In 1976 very few people (on the global scale) had any idea who Richard Dawkins was. After The Selfish Gene came out, this started to gradually change.

The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable both suffer from the same problem as The Selfish Gene. From the titles alone, I can tell they are probably very annoying and long-winded books.

Interesting way to evaluate books - is that evaluation process alike the one that helped you conclude that you find theist forums boring?

[apophenia]

Just bout to start this book detailing the geological look at the Earth's past climate and what we can learn from it.



http://www.christurney.com/Home/Ice,_Mud_%26_Blood.html

Interesting. Dr Iain Stewart, author of the BBCs "Earth: Climate Wars" remarks:
"’Ice, Mud and Blood’ is just what the global warming debate needs – a sober but passionate account of past climate change by a leading climate scientist that builds to an uncompromising climax: unnatural climate change is here and it’s only going to get worse."

It's hypothesized that key events in hominid evolution occurred not through periods of climate stability, but rather as a consequence of periods of great climate instability (e.g. "African climate change and faunal evolution during the Pliocene–Pleistocene"). (That article refers to post 4 Mya events, but ISTR theories that climate change approx. 6 Mya also affected hominid evolution.) Unfortunately, I have far too many other things on my list to add it. Climate change is a fascinating subject, especially the Little Ice Age. It's normally dated from roughly the 16th through the 19th century, but the early downturn of European climate in the 13th and 14th centuries had startling consequences. It just goes to show how even a small change in the balance of processes can have enormous consequences. It's not safe to look at the whole as a linear system, I suspect, and thus any chaotic cycles that exist can produce unexpected and dramatic results.

[Svartalf]

I'll admit, these few days I'm "reading" a retrospective of my "way of the tiger" and "lone wolf" gamebooks

[Matty]

But 'Selfish' is too much of a leap into human ethical philosophy for me to take it seriously enough to part with my money and time in favour of its author. What I know now about him rather confirms my original decision.

well not to put too fine a point on it, but you are misunderstanding or rather choosing to misinterpret the entire concept. The whole point of the selfish gene is the detailing of how we organisms are merely vehicles for the passage of genetic information , human ethical anything is completely out of the picture. What you are doing is kinda like looking at cellular phagocytosis as an expression of imperialism, or as chemical bonding as love, your scale is all fucked.

as for "what you know of Dawkins", what do you know? That he is an advocate for reason over myth, albeit a fervent one, and that makes some people uncomfortable? That he is a nasty man who happily pops peoples woolly minded philosophical bubbles and has no right to? Or do you know of him as one of the leading thinkers on natural selection who has been kinda backed into a corner and now occasionally lashes out? Its a mistake to look at Dawkins science writing and his philosophical writing in exactly the same vein anyway IMO, but one thing you can say about Dawkins is that he is not often wrong. He might not be NICE about it but so fucking what? You wanna start tallying up discomfort and misery ntm screaming cognitive dissonance cause by writing and any one of the revered holy books wins the prize hands down. The God Delusion is a throwaway pamphlet in such a comparison.

I have some issue with some of his more extrapolated theories of the extended gene type and especially when you start on the memetic models etc but on the whole he is pretty much spot on and also to my mind quite right to be defensive of the undermining of a valid and proven field of science by those with a vested and actually SELFISH vested interest in myth perpetration. True selfishness comes from wishing censorship of idea and thoughts on the global consciousness and that is very much a religious trait and always has been. Murderously so at times. What can be more selfish than to think that some supreme being placed us, his most favoured beings here in a universe created soley for our benefit?. Thats selfishness on a rather grander scale than the risk of making people rethink their childhood indoctrination.



Aside from that, (and fwiw Climbing mount improbable and the Devils Advocate are my favourite Dawkins books for straight up reading, along with the God Delusion of course. SG and the blind watchmaker from an eye opening science perspective) i am reading the only one of Ian Rankins Rebus books that slipped through the gap earlier on. The Naming of the Dead. So far its pretty good in the usual gritty way but i am not far into it yet.

[Clinton Huxley]

As I'm up to my monocle swotting for my medicinal chemistry exam on the 14th October, I've opted for some light reading to fill the few spare moments. Getting into Philip Reeves' Mortal Engines Quartet. Post-apocalyptic moving cities take on each other and the static settlements of the Anti-Traction League. Airships, duels, robot zombies, Librarians, spies, pirates, biscuits, derring-do and a smidgeon of whimsy. Love it. Will definitely read the series to the Mini-Huxleys when they are older.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Waldo, and Magic Inc. by some retired Navy officer. Name escapes me.

[Svartalf]

Waldo, and Magic Inc. by some retired Navy officer. Name escapes me.

Far from among his best works.

Poul Anderson mentioned the latter as an inspiration for his Operation Chaos stories... But the inspiration was definitely not up to the level of the subsequent work... heck, even that quack Turtledove's Case of the Toxic Spell Dump was better.

[Matty]

i just pre ordered the Dawkins kids book for my son. Quite excited to have a read of it myself as his "letter to a 10 year old" was brilliant.

[tattuchu]

i just pre ordered the Dawkins kids book for my son. Quite excited to have a read of it myself as his "letter to a 10 year old" was brilliant.

Oh? What's this?

[Ronja]

tat, click ye here http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6429 ... of-reality