Opinion of Richard Dawkins (both as a biologist and a philosopher)

[wimp]

Known for creating the word "meme".

[Kingpoleon]

Possibly the worst philosopher ever. Even the dullest philosopher of materialism, such as Dennett, at least grasps what philosophy is.

[afleitch]

It's 2021.

[wimp]

Is there any good criticism of his scientific research? Just asking from considering his views on everything else.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is there any good criticism of his scientific research? Just asking from considering his views on everything else.

If you're interested, read Kim Sterelny's Dawkins Vs Gould, which contrasts both SJG and RD's approach to evolutionary biology. The latter views selection (the process that drives evolutionary change) s driven by genes, the former viewed change as driven by organisms. They also disagree on the nature of "microevolution". Tbh it often comes across as merely disputes over how the process of evolution should be framed, but Dawkins has a proudly reductionist view of natural history that is rejected by Gould.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Is there any good criticism of his scientific research? Just asking from considering his views on everything else.

If you're interested, read Kim Sterelny's Dawkins Vs Gould, which contrasts both SJG and RD's approach to evolutionary biology. The latter views selection (the process that drives evolutionary change) s driven by genes, the former viewed change as driven by organisms. They also disagree on the nature of "microevolution". Tbh it often comes across as merely disputes over how the process of evolution should be framed, but Dawkins has a proudly reductionist view of natural history that is rejected by Gould.

Gould decisively lost that dispute with Dawkins. No-one in evolutionary biology disputes gene-driven evolution today.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is there any good criticism of his scientific research? Just asking from considering his views on everything else.

If you're interested, read Kim Sterelny's Dawkins Vs Gould, which contrasts both SJG and RD's approach to evolutionary biology. The latter views selection (the process that drives evolutionary change) s driven by genes, the former viewed change as driven by organisms. They also disagree on the nature of "microevolution". Tbh it often comes across as merely disputes over how the process of evolution should be framed, but Dawkins has a proudly reductionist view of natural history that is rejected by Gould.

Gould decisively lost that dispute with Dawkins. No-one in evolutionary biology disputes gene-driven evolution today.

True, I guess the biggest biologist around that disputes it is EO Wilson?

There were also other points of contention between the two that the consensus might be more Gould friendly - I don't think biologists are generally as cynical of the punctuated equilibrium model as Dawkins is - I learnt it as both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are complementary.

[°Leprechaun]

Based on what I know, I have a very favorable opinion of him ... therefore... first option.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Does Dawkins even claim to be a philosopher? I don't know that he ever has--wisely, given his extremely hamstrung and tendentious understanding of the discipline.

[Alben Barkley]

Similar to Noam Chomsky who’s a freedom linguist, horrible philosopher.

Some people really should just stay in their fields, but they seem to think they are so smart they can be experts in absolutely everything.

[Big Abraham]

Similar to Noam Chomsky who’s a freedom linguist, horrible philosopher.

Chomsky himself used to say that he barely qualified as a linguist given that he was employed by MIT, a technical institute.

[Blue3]

I don't know why many Christians treat him like he's the Pope of Atheism

Also, I don't think he's been relevant since the 1990s, or early 2000s?