The Extended Phenotype, Book Review Example

This review[1] is based upon a critique of Richard Dawkins “The extended phenotype”.  The point is made that Dawkins is not intending to set down new theories that make a paradigm shift.  It sets out to enable the reader to determine the true nature of the gene and understand the concept of gene replication. Mularz has done an excellent job of reviewing a complex subject matter.  And explaining this in easy to understand and comprehend terms. Mularz reminds us of the controversy and challenges contained in most of Dawkins  work ” Dawkins continues to wound  the adaptionists  by pointing out the popularly cited problem with homosexuality is only a Darwinian problem.. “.  This is an academic paper of some merit and takes overall a positive stance Dawkins work.  Good use of academic citations from leading academicians in the field e.g., Cosma Shalizi ( University of Michigan) praised the Dawkins style relentlessly clear, both in prose and logic.

A good concluding point, by Mularz, relates to the extended phenotype in the concept that ‘some genes force their respective replicator vehicles to grow arms’.  This may well have led Dawkins to second edition, where he changed the subtitle of the book to ‘the Long reach of the Gene’.

This article[2], produced by Ray examines the metaphor concept of the selfish gene.  He captures our attention by stating metaphors create more controversy in the evolutionary biology and other expressions.  This leads us to examine Dawkins motives and use of these in his other academic works.  He’s really challenging the reader to re-examine his thought process and not merely accept conventional wisdom.  Dawkins claimed genes, not individuals, were the fundamental unit of selection.  Whilst agreeing with a number of Darwinian points, Dawkins offered a radical revision of the Orthodox Darwinian view of nature.  This chapter provides an excellent interpretation of the selfish gene along with references to other Dawkins academic works.  In this sense, it is an academic paper.  Gray puts forward some of his own views advancing the concept of replicators into that of developmental systems theory, which bridges the gap into the evolutionary theory.  This is also a scientific paper using a considerable amount of empirical research and comparative analysis.  Particularly examining gene traits and DNA.  Being a scientific paper it solicits many different opinions and viewpoints from other scientists and biologists.  As such, it contains a considerable number of different perspectives and views.

Gunther[3] talks about the controversy and attacks made on leading academics in the socio-biology field.  His main point being that you cannot judge a field of study shortly by the attacks that are raised upon it.  He makes it clear that the attacks upon Richard Dawkins are often ill founded  and leave a lot to be desired from those people who carry this out.  He also states that a lot of critics do so at the expense of having any real scientific substance in their arguments.  He was quoted as saying, the selfish Gene, could be the kiss of death for the socio-biology field’. Gunther considers that Dawkins is deliberately provocative in the delivery and deliberation of his messages .  Dawkins puts forward wholly unconventional, value free and mischievous definitions..etc. .  He maintains that Dawkins often uses words in the conventional sense, and not often in the scientific context.

This text is essentially based upon the opinion of Gunther Stent, but he does attempt to widen the horizon by embracing the views of other academicians and scientists.  The paper is somewhat critical of Dawkins views on altruism.  Equally appears defensive of other scientists offering an alternative point of view, in particular, the fear of conventionality in the social and biological field being challenged.

This paper[4] is essentially a critical paper on Richard Dawkins selfish gene.  The office states that the book is confusing in its terminology and has confused a large number of people.  Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, no more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological.   The author considers that Dawkins has a weakness for morality and reports his observations as cosmic truths.  She described him as an uncritical philosophic egoist.  The criticism seems very much centered upon the opinions of the author and seem to be far more emotive than expanding upon scientific views and values; ironically the very thing that she accuses Dawkins of.  There is no real effort to expand the arguments with the viewpoints of others;  although this is more of a philosophical stance, as opposed to scientific analysis.

This paper[5] is based upon the Stanford University presidential lectures as delivered by Stanford lecturer Steven J. Gould.  It is therefore an academic presentation discussing the selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.  He states that the argument put forward by Dawkins is provocatively clear prose i.e., the organisms are only the vehicle or survival machines for  genes.  People say that Dawkins vastly oversimplifies things.  He’s not wrong, but just too optimistic sometimes.  He states that Dawkins represents the analytic tradition in the modern Academy.  It is considered that Dawkins needs to cultivate the need for richer explanation and perhaps less provocative in his scientific explanation of terms and  particular the use of metaphors.  This is an academic presentation conducted at one of the USA’s leading universities and explores a number of different viewpoints.

Cited Works

http://www.mularzart.com/writings/The%20extended%20phenotype.pdf. The Extended Phenotype – Richard Dawkins. Reviewed by :  Stephen Mularz

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HmVbYJ93d-AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA184&dq=critiques+of+Richard+Dawkins+the+selfish+gene&ots=LKxwDnwdZs&sig=_zDnhg4MQMbNXou2_fE7yDD6eKo#v=onepage&q=&f=false.  Selfish Genes or Developmental Systems, Chapter 9. by  Russell D Gray

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3560881. You can take the ethics out of Altruism: but you cant take the altruism out of ethics. by  Gunther S Stent

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3751039. Gene Juggling. by Mary Midgely

http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/commentary/thurtle.html. “The G Files”: Linking “The Selfish Gene” And “The Thinking Reed”. by: Phillip Stevens Thurtle

[1] http://www.mularzart.com/writings/THE%20EXTENDED%20PHENOTYPE.pdf    The Extended Phenotype – Richard Dawkins Reviewed by :  Stephen Mularz

[2] http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HmVbYJ93d-AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA184&dq=critiques+of+Richard+Dawkins+the+selfish+gene&ots=LKxwDnwdZs&sig=_zDnhg4MQMbNXou2_fE7yDD6eKo#v=onepage&q=&f=false    Selfish Genes or Developmental Systems, Chapter 9 by  Russell D Gray

[3] http://www.jstor.org/pss/3560881  You can take the ethics out of Altruism: but you cant take the altruism out of ethics   by  Gunther S Stent

[4] http://www.jstor.org/pss/3751039 Gene Juggling  by Mary Midgely

[5] http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/commentary/thurtle.html   “The G Files”: Linking “The Selfish Gene” And “The Thinking Reed”  by: Phillip Stevens Thurtle