🚀 go-pugleaf

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.065434.23370@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

>>I don't think this makes sense, at least for anyone who has read
>>Dawkins' book, The Extended Phenotype -- because Dawkins would be the
>>first to agree that it is not at all a matter of "simple summations".

>I would note that _The Extended Phenotype_ opens with a preface in
>which Dawkins is at pains to deny/disclaim meaning what many readers
>(both careful and careless, biologically educated and generalists)
>have read _The Selfish Gene_ to mean (and which is the target of
>Gould's animus in the review.)  Given the crude way in which one
>sees Dawkins clever phrases used on the net, I am with Gould in my
>animus, even though much of TEP (and indeed TSG, when rendered of
>its rather high polemic content) has interesting and intelligent
>things to say.  I think that Dawkins is either disingenuous or a
>totally negligent author.

WOW! Is disingenuous good?  Wait 'til I tell Ma!

-Dave Dawkins "What the hell's a Phenotype, and who'd want to extend it
               anyway?"

-- 
djd@csg.cs.rdg.ac.uk
djd@csug.cs.rdg.ac.uk
davidd@integ.uucp