I'm reading The Selfish Gene right now.

[Kai]

For a long time I put off reading this book because I hate HATE Dawkins' "Brights", I despise them as much as I do fundies of any religion. However, the book has some good ideas in it.

The main premise of the book is that biology, and organisms, are protective structures for modern forms of the original replicators, now DNA. The whole reason for everything extra to that replication process is facilitation of the replication, all the way up to human behavior.

Now, I'm not sure I agree completely with his main premise, mostly because I'm so tired of how far some athiest idiots take this. However, Dawkins makes it clear that the selfishness of our genes should NOT be any basis for morality. It is important to be aware of the latent selfishness so you can correct for it.

Thats about all I've gotten out of it so far but I am only a 4th of the way through.

[Cain]

I personally think it is a good book.  While Dawkins does suck at religious philosophy, there is no doubt he's an excellent scientist and engaging writer.  Like Sagan, he is someone who can write about some very complicated stuff in an easy and elegant way, and one which actually makes you feel fairly smart for following his thinking, while not making it too hard for non-specialists.

[Vene]

Dammit Kai, I just picked up that same book from the library yesterday.  It also sounds like you're as far through as me.  I'm going to try and avoid thinking about things like his "Brights" movement.  Even if they may turn out to be the new Randites it does nothing as to whether or not Dawkins is right about genes being the unit of evolution.  So far I like his ideas, after all genes control the very formation of an organism and they're changed during evolution.

I did like how he made it very clear that humans are just another animal and that the line between life and non-life is fuzzy.

[Kai]

I personally think it is a good book.  While Dawkins does suck at religious philosophy, there is no doubt he's an excellent scientist and engaging writer.  Like Sagan, he is someone who can write about some very complicated stuff in an easy and elegant way, and one which actually makes you feel fairly smart for following his thinking, while not making it too hard for non-specialists.

I think he tries to imitate the style of the early 20th century natural journalists too much, like Eisley, and Leopold, except he goes beyond that and makes the language way too flowery. I don't know why scientists tend to write this way. There are simpler ways to write which are much more coherent.

I'd be much happier reading a short summary of his ideas than all the stuff in between. I can't say I'm enjoying the read, just that some of the points are interesting.

[Kai]

Dammit Kai, I just picked up that same book from the library yesterday.  It also sounds like you're as far through as me.  I'm going to try and avoid thinking about things like his "Brights" movement.  Even if they may turn out to be the new Randites it does nothing as to whether or not Dawkins is right about genes being the unit of evolution.  So far I like his ideas, after all genes control the very formation of an organism and they're changed during evolution.

I did like how he made it very clear that humans are just another animal and that the line between life and non-life is fuzzy.

Some of his points are good, others are messy. Its not been holding my attention well; I've had it for 4 weeks now.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I personally think it is a good book.  While Dawkins does suck at religious philosophy, there is no doubt he's an excellent scientist and engaging writer.  Like Sagan, he is someone who can write about some very complicated stuff in an easy and elegant way, and one which actually makes you feel fairly smart for following his thinking, while not making it too hard for non-specialists.

I think he tries to imitate the style of the early 20th century natural journalists too much, like Eisley, and Leopold, except he goes beyond that and makes the language way too flowery. I don't know why scientists tend to write this way. There are simpler ways to write which are much more coherent.

I'd be much happier reading a short summary of his ideas than all the stuff in between. I can't say I'm enjoying the read, just that some of the points are interesting.

To sell books, one must fill them with words... even if those words may be unnecessary to get the points across.

[Kai]

I personally think it is a good book.  While Dawkins does suck at religious philosophy, there is no doubt he's an excellent scientist and engaging writer.  Like Sagan, he is someone who can write about some very complicated stuff in an easy and elegant way, and one which actually makes you feel fairly smart for following his thinking, while not making it too hard for non-specialists.

I think he tries to imitate the style of the early 20th century natural journalists too much, like Eisley, and Leopold, except he goes beyond that and makes the language way too flowery. I don't know why scientists tend to write this way. There are simpler ways to write which are much more coherent.

I'd be much happier reading a short summary of his ideas than all the stuff in between. I can't say I'm enjoying the read, just that some of the points are interesting.

To sell books, one must fill them with words... even if those words may be unnecessary to get the points across.

It would have been fine if his writing was less...boring. I don't know. Maybe I just read too much stuff like this so that the style has become completely uninteresting to me. I'm trying to get past that to the content.

There is also that I know a good deal of what he is talking about already, so I skip over paragraphs. That, and some of the information is outdated.

[Vene]

There is also that I know a good deal of what he is talking about already, so I skip over paragraphs. That, and some of the information is outdated.

This.  I really don't need somebody to explain to me that genes are in chromosomes or that mitosis is cell replication.  I think he tried too hard to make his audience broad.  He stated that he wanted this book to appeal to laypeople, biology students, and professional biologists.

I expected outdated information, it was written in the late 70s after all.

[Cain]

I can't say I find his style boring. Compared to some texts I had to read (especially in psychology...BLARGH!!).  Of course, if you're looking mostly for the facts, the meat of his theories and his hypothesis', then I can understand why it would be viewed that way.  Since my leanings in education are more literary, it may be I appreciate that aspect of his writing more.

[Kai]

I can't say I find his style boring. Compared to some texts I had to read (especially in psychology...BLARGH!!).  Of course, if you're looking mostly for the facts, the meat of his theories and his hypothesis', then I can understand why it would be viewed that way.  Since my leanings in education are more literary, it may be I appreciate that aspect of his writing more.

See, I appreciate literary science as well. Like I said, I love the writings of Eisley (see sig) and I've quoted Aldo Leopold at length before.

I think one of the big problems is the tendency to throw around terms that are now buzzwords. No fault of his, he wrote this in the 60s, but it does make the read less enjoyable for me. Maybe I would be inclined to read about a subject in this style that I know less about.

[nurbldoff]

I found an (abridged) audio version of Dawkins' "the ancestor's tale" (on TPB I think) which I listened to while walking to and from work. It was pretty interesting, but I have to admit that stuff doesn't stick to my brain as well when I listen to it as when I read it. Or maybe it's because I'm distracted by stuff all the time.

[Triple Zero]

I found an (abridged) audio version of Dawkins' "the ancestor's tale" (on TPB I think) which I listened to while walking to and from work. It was pretty interesting, but I have to admit that stuff doesn't stick to my brain as well when I listen to it as when I read it. Or maybe it's because I'm distracted by stuff all the time.

I'm pretty sure it's the latter Stuff don't really stick to your brain if it's not your focus. Just the fact that, as opposed to paper, you can do something else while "listening" to an audiobook, doesn't mean you're actually going to get much out of it. Multitasking is in fact a big, fat lie.

[nurbldoff]

Troof. In fact I think I'm going to give up on non-fiction for audiobooks. I basically use them for two things; when I'm walking/biking/bussing somewhere (not always), and sometimes before sleep. I've found  audiobooks to be a perfect sleep inducer for when I have trouble falling asleep. Which probably means that I'm not a very active listener...

Sometimes the latter strategy completely backfires, though