Talk:Mary Midgley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is supported by WikiProject North East England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to North East England on Wikipedia. For further information or to participate, you can visit the Project page.	North East England Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.

So what exactly is midgley about? in lamest terms...anyone?

Contents 1 Religion 2 Dawkins 3 Not a christian? 4 "Misinterpreted"

[edit] Religion

I think the intro gave a false impression - Midgley isn't particularly religious (in fact, I can't remember whether she's a believer at all), her concern is with science inappropriately attempting to supplant the humanities in general (The Myths We Live By is very clear on this, as is Evolution as a Religion - her beef in the second book is with scientists adopting a religious tone). She's also quite strongly pro-science in the appropriate areas - Beast and Man is certainly not anti-science, and in many ways is strongly opposed to prevailing thought in the humanities, often coming down quite firmly on the nature side of the nature/nurture debate, and against the idea (often found in some forms of humanism) that humans are entirely qualitatively different from other animals. She's very subtle, and this article is going to need quite a bit of expansion to capture what she's about. --  ajn (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

The article also needs expanding upon re: her dealings with Dawkins. Her original review of The Selfish Gene, for instance, is a brilliantly rubbish assault. It's rare to come across such venom in a published academic journal (usually people are far more polite when attempting to destroy work). It's even rarer when the assault is so outrageously misguided and ill-informed. Midgley seems at times to wilfully misread the book - actually, she seems more to have just read its title and skipped on its contents. The impression one might draw from the article at present is that her arguments were merely badly articulated in the review, rather than a blistering academic faux pas that I'm surprised she survived. However, as a biologist, I'm a bit non-NPOV on this one. --Plumbago 16:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's quite wrong to say Midgley is mis-informed. She is actually quite well-informed on genetics, and extremely well-informed on animal behaviour and on the history of thought on evolution.

I wouldn't substantially disagree with Plumbago's assessment. However, much of the current criticism of the 25-year-old article is based on the second edition of The Selfish Gene, where I believe Dawkins toned down some of the simplistic "genes control us and make us selfish" stuff. Midgley was working from the first edition. I'm going to see if my library has copies of the original and the second edition (I have the second but can't find it). For example, it's hard to reconcile this, from Dawkins's article in Philosophy[1]: When biologists talk about ‘selfishness or ‘altruism’ we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes. with this, which Midgley quotes as being from the introduction to the 1979 edition of TSG: If you wish... to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biologial nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. The argument's not just about Midgley getting it wrong, Dawkins isn't talking about genes in that second quote (the words Midgley elided, by the way, are "as I do", which is itself significant). --  ajn (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As I recall (someone's "borrowed" my copy so I can't check), the 2nd Edition of The Selfish Gene contains the unaltered chapters from the 1st Edition plus two extra chapters (one of which is a useful condensation of The Extended Phenotype). I think Dawkins makes the point that was asked to update the text for the next edition but chose to add footnotes to it instead (these appear at the back of the book). I used to own a copy of the original edition (that too was "borrowed"), and as far as I recall, the 2nd Edition followed its text exactly.

As regards "genes control us and make us selfish", that's only ever been the parody of Dawkins (the closing line of The Selfish Gene states an aspirational opposite to this parody). He makes a broad outline of the "selfish gene" theory in remarks in both the opening and closing chapters, and one would struggle to interpret these in the way which Midgley does. In The Selfish Gene he does use altruism in both the common sense and in that used by biologists, but it's not difficult at any point to distinguish which he's using. Admittedly, I say this as a biologist, so perhaps it isn't as obvious as I think.

Well, it's not hard to show that, whatever he says in mitigation Dawkins thinks exactly that.

He does say:

- "Our genes may instruct us to be selfish, but we are not necessarily compelled to obey them"

the gene is clearly put forward as a locus of control - isn't it ?

He does say:

- "If you look at the way natural selection works it seems to follow that anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish"

the genes are making us selfish - aren't they ?

I'm not sure why people think he's been misunderstood.

Perhaps it's because these confused (couldn't one just say wrong ?) ideas are closely associated with some true (though perhaps not world-shakingly original) things.

'The genes we have are those ones which have characteristics which have resulted in them being passed down ' followed parenthetically with '(regardless of the interests of other genes/individuals)' The parenthesised part is where the trouble is.

It may make the whole thing sound more exciting. It may sell books, but it doesn't add anything useful, it isn't true, and it isn't science. It no more belongs in the theory than an intelligent designer does.

This is all preparatory to working out a better way to develop this part of the article - There are real reasons for the comments Midgley made, they may not be to do with the biology particularly, but with the way that this metaphor of selfishness is used. BTW if I'm splurging this in the wrong place put a note here & I'll move it

Anyway, should my copy of The Selfish Gene materialise, I'll try to back up the above. And if I've the time, I'll have a go at editing the article itself. At the very least, the article should include a link to Dawkins' reply to Midgley for completeness (surprisingly, for an academic journal, I found both Midgley's review and Dawkins' reply freely available on the web). --Plumbago 08:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made a start, which at least includes links to all the articles in Philosophy and can be expanded. I think it's worth examining this controversy from a philosophical viewpoint as well as a biological one, though (I'm a former scientist who works in engineering, I'm certainly not anti-Dawkins or anti-Darwin). The last sentence of TSG, which you mention above, is in one of the parts of the book which step outside biology and into the realm of philosophy (free will, consciousness, etc), with Dawkins making bold statements which don't really stand up to careful examination. This is exactly the sort of thing Midgley objects to, and her objections (as opposed to her misunderstanding of Dawkins's biological theory) are largely valid. Midgley is a philosopher who misunderstood an aspect of biology, but a lot of the scientists who criticise her have an equal misunderstanding of her philosophical objections. -- ajn (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I like what you've done. It's definitely the sort of thing I had in mind. As for the philosophical side of it, I'd be interested to read that. Because of the confusion over the use of language in her paper, I can't work out what Midgley's philosophical objections are. I don't know though that Dawkins had much to say about consciousness and free will beyond his statements that we have them (and can thus over-rule the influence of genes and/or memes). I would say though that consciousness and free will aren't forever the property of philosophy - much of the former is gradually being brought into science (if it can be considered separately from philosophy). The latter will hopefully follow. Again, I say this as a scientist - no intellectual territory is beyond its reach! ;) Anyway, looking forwards to seeing your future edits. Will try to make some myself. --Plumbago 17:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why a major philosopher is being reduced to her exchange with Dawkins, which, by the way, has been seriously misrepresented. I sincerely doubt if any of the authors here has actually read the Mackie-Midgley-Dawkins exchange in its entirety. I posit that sexism may be at work here. Midgley is a major, important philosopher who has contribued enormous to the philosophy of science and human-animal relationships. If any of you had read "Evolution as a Religion" you would've included the fact that the bulk of the book is entirely valid criticisms of scientists' extrapolations of evolutionary biology into the realm of faith and morals. Quote-mining how stupidly she interpreted Dawkins is a ploy -- reread the exchange and you will see that the quotes you have pulled seriously misreprested Midgley's position. For example, she KNOWS that Dawkins was trying to use "selfish" as a metaphor!!! Even simply reading the first paragraph carefully yields that Midgley is not as clueless as people say. Come on, let's give Mary more respect here.

The article is hardly reduced to an exchange with Mackie and Dawkins. If it seems to underplay what she's done, by all means expand the article to include her other achievements. If the article's missing these, it's only because no-one's felt confident enough to add them. The text I've added reflects what I know of her from my (limited) reading of the subject.

As for quote-mining, her attack on Mackie and Dawkins is a pretty rich seam to mine. Describing it as "intemperate" (as the article currently does) is really rather tame. And I disgree entirely about misrepresenting her - she really does bend over backwards to misinterpret their views. If she does, as you say, know that Dawkins was trying to use "selfish" as a metaphor, she does a pretty good job of hiding it. And it's not as if Dawkins was obscure in his use of this language - right in the first chapter of his book (pages 2-4 in the 2nd edition) there's a section on what he means by it, and what his book is not about. He also explicitly separates describing nature and drawing moral lessons from it.

Anyway, that said, I really would appreciate additions to the article to expand on Midgley's work. I do agree that it's unfortunate if someone's life work is summed up on the basis of an exchange they had with someone else. But WP needs people to add text to fill in the gaps and round off articles on notable people. I can't really commment on her other work, but it sounds like you can. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The comment "However, this particular line of argument confuses the randomness of mutation for non-random selection, and caricatures the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis as centring solely on natural selection when it openly includes processes such as genetic drift and neutral evolution. Ironically, in his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins presented a similar caricature to illustrate what neo-Darwinism is not." is not sourced or NPoV - I've deleted it but perhaps whoever put it in could amend so that it is NBeale 12:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair cop - reading it again now, it isn't NPOV. I originally added the text to try to balance the quote from Midgley immediately preceding it. I didn't source it because I didn't think (at that time) that anything it contained particularly needed sourcing (evolution is not random for instance). The quote from Midgley contains several essentially false or misleading statements (especially the "widespread discontent"), so while the text I added isn't ideal (to say the least), some sort of riposte seemed (and seems) necessary to me. Alternatively, perhaps the quote could be removed? It's not from one of her seminal works, so just leaving the link to it might suffice. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a christian?

Why state explicity that she's not a Christian? She's also not a muslim, Jew, buddhist or Cthulhu cultist. --Uberisaac 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Might be because of her views on evolution (not that being a Christian, again, has much to do with that). Good call though, I reckon edit it out. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's should be kept because she comes from a Christian family (daughter of a college chaplain), and has defended religion - if it's not there, it looks as if she's coming from a Christian perspective, which she isn't. --ajn (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be worded more carefully? I think the original complaint related to the specificity of the point (i.e. Christian), when it might be better to say that she wasn't religious or a follower of a particular faith. I do think it sounds a little bit odd, but it can't be edited out simply as I previously suggested (oops). --Plumbago 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Misinterpreted"

Hi there. I've just reverted "interpreted" to "misinterpreted" re: Midgley's reading of The Selfish Gene. I agree that the use of "misinterpreted" does sound odd (POV even), but her review of TSG makes for informative reading. Either she skim-read the book (or read only brief sections of it), or wilfully misread it (perhaps in response to the reception of the book in particular quarters). Given that the book makes it very (very) clear in the first chapter exactly what it is and isn't about (and specifically precludes Midgley's charges), it is difficult to see how it is open to interpretation in the manner posed by Midgley. Anyway, I just wanted to explain my revert. We can discuss it further here if you like. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok - so what exactly is the nature of her misunderstanding ?

Dawkins says genes are selfish, and that the behaviour they produce must also be selfish

Even if its meaning were clear, the first would require demonstration. The second is obviously a non sequitur.

Is that the area where you think she's missed it ?

From her review of TSG (even just the start of it), it's very clear that she misunderstands the entire thesis of the book and, by extension, sociobiology in general. The quote included in the article from her review makes it clear that she does not even understand what is meant by "selfish gene". She interprets this to literally mean "genes are personally selfish" when sociobiology transparently uses this sort of expression in a technical sense (though one not so far from the common understanding). That Dawkins makes it very clear in TSG what he (and sociobiology) mean by such expressions (and does so at the very start of his book), makes one question Midgley's motives in the review. Hence the dispute. Having read many reviews of academic books over the years, I've never come across anything as ferocious and misguided as Midgley's - if you haven't read it already, I'd recommend it, together with Dawkins' reply. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I take it then that you think that she failed to understand that Dawkins, when he used the word 'selfish' meant something metaphorical; that she did not understand that he intended to encapsulate in that word the attribute of survival without 'regard' to the interests of others. That she had failed to understand that the word used in that way was 'technical', and that this is why you refer to being a biologist, because being a biologist you are equipped to understand that technical meaning, which she had failed to grasp ?

Erm. I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but anyway. My contention above was that she failed to understand what was meant by "selfish" and "altruistic" in the context of animal behaviour even when explicitly told what was meant (e.g. "It is important to realize that the above definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioural, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives"; pg. 4, TSG). Dawkins specifically addresses this point (and expands on it) in his reply to her review (among many other points he takes her to task over). It's one thing to misunderstand something that's written for a technical audience and may therefore not define all of its terms; it's quite another to misunderstand something when its terms are clearly spelt out in the opening pages (and for a non-technical audience!). Regarding my point about being a biologist, that was just to make it clear where I was coming from, so that people could call me where I was assuming something that needed explaining. With respect to understanding the "technical meaning which [Midgley] had failed to grasp", it really isn't a difficult concept at all (and certainly shouldn't be to a philosopher). Anyway, I don't know if the above helps. Hope it does. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See - You're right that 'technical' meaning isn't hard to grasp, including to a philosopher. I wonder if anything would change in your understanding of her comments if you assumed that she did indeed understand exactly what Dawkins is saying, and what he thinks he is saying

Hmmm. Cryptic, eh? I'll try to respond. If I "assumed that she did indeed understand exactly what Dawkins is saying, and what he thinks he is saying", I'd have to seriously question her scholarship (I don't on the whole). That would require a wilful misunderstanding and misstatement of Dawkins' work on her part completely unbefitting publication in an academic journal. But something tells me you're not after this. Anyway, I think we should stick to improving the article. --Plumbago 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No

The point I'm making is that HE is misunderstanding & misrepresenting what he is saying. He says things, then says "Oh, by the way I don't mean what I say to be taken in such and such a way", but he has nevertheless said it, what he says has effects on how people think.

Obviously, I completely disagree with this view. Your "quote" above sounds a little like remarks he makes near the beginning of TSG, but they are there to specifically make clear what is meant by the use of particular expressions. This is to clarify and define the terms used in the book. Otherwise the sort of apparent misunderstanding made by Midgley would be likely to happen. Of course, if one just reads portions of a book, one might well miss this sort of clarification. --Plumbago 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Disavowal of something is not always enough. When a man says "Some of my best friends are Black" we don't necessarily believe that he is free of prejudices. If he says "we are born selfish" and "Gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour" we have to take it that although the ostensible subject of the book is a (poorly defined) characteristic of the outcome of competition (another metaphor) between genes over millenia, he is nevertheless making statements about people's motivations, and if you think what people think about this kind of thing doesn't matter, you need to look around more at what influences people's actions.

Again, Dawkins is very clear on distinguishing selfishness as a subjective experience from selfishness in a behavioural sense. His point on emotional selfishness (your quote appears to be from the very end of the book; where he specifically discusses human culture) is simply that one would expect this in complex organisms as a function of underlying (and non-emotional) genetic selfishness. Note that he doesn't say that this is inevitable, but just argues that it's to be expected. One might disagree with the sweeping nature of this view, especially when one comes organisms such as humans which rely on learned behaviour, but that's a separate debateable point. --Plumbago 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins reply starts by saying "She seems not to understand biology or the way biologists use language. No doubt my ignorance would be just as obvious if I rushed headlong into her field of expertise, but I would then adopt a more diffident tone." That's exactly the point - he thinks he is just writing up a biological idea, but in fact of course he starts from and promotes a philosophical position.

I don't quite see why this is solely a "philosophical position". Dawkins is discussing behaviour, which is a biological feature of organisms. Why can't biologists address the mechanisms and motives underlying behaviour? Are you suggesting that morality, etc. are the sole provenance of philosophy? --Plumbago 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

She of course understood that he didn't think really that genes are conscious or motivated, but he repeatedly speaks as if they are, and as if the DGS (Dawkins Genetic Selfishness) which they manifest must neccesarily result in selfish behaviour at the ordinary level.

If she understood this point, she did a pretty good job of disguising it. Making smart, obscurantist remarks about abstract elephants is not a sensible way to discuss either science or philosophy (not least because it's not at all clear that elephants, as sentient organisms, can't be abstract). And if her beef is simply about Dawkins' point that selfishness at a genetic level leads to emotional selfishness, then she should have focused more clearly on that point (and, anyway, as I note above, Dawkins doesn't say that this inevitable, merely likely). --Plumbago 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you doubt this is true reread the book.

Yes, I doubt this. And I've read the book several times over the years. It makes sense to me, and I continue to be unable to see Midgley's review as anything other than a rather extreme misunderstanding. My suspicion is that she was responding to a larger movement in science to study subjects previously in the domain of philosophy. Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology makes this "takeover" more explicit. In this context, TSG was a rather obvious and well-known target. But, of course, I say this as a biologist, and am simply guessing at Midgley's motivations. --Plumbago 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is often a problem when people work at a specialist subject, and semi-consciously - as it were in their peripheral vision - develop ideas around the margins about the implications or concepts that relate to their central work. When those ideas are called into question - as happened here, they naturally tend to think that it is the work that is in question rather than those peripheral ideas - which may however be very significant in the wider world.

Again, I disagree. While the history of Midgley and Dawkins' spat is interesting, let's look at what the result of it is : no change in the direction of sociobiology. Scientists continue to use the "language of emotions" in a well-defined technical sense to describe behaviour at a range of levels (from genes to organisms and above). Genetic selfishness is firmly established in the corpus of science, and both altruism and selfishness form the base of much productive research. Both TSG and The Extended Phenotype (its successor) have become established works in science, and are still frequently cited in the primary literature. This, I would argue, counters your interpretation of the fallout of Midgley vs. Dawkins. --Plumbago 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you think the article is improving, but I'm far from clear that we have done justice to this interesting discussion.

What I would like to see is more articulation of Midgley's philosophical views. Beyond disgruntled sniping at Dawkins, I'd like the article to cover more of her contributions to philosophy - whether it relates to her work in sociobiology or not. There is material there already, but there's as much on her spat with Dawkins. Interestingly, she embraces Gaia (as, to a degree, do I), but I've little idea from the current draft of the article why this is (and what is a "moral interpretation of Gaia" when it comes to it?). Also, the listing of her work is fairly comprehensive, but needs to be plumbed into the article better. These are the sorts of improvements I favour. Getting Midgley into philosophy templates would help too. Anyway, apologies that this debate has become so long-winded, that wasn't what I had in mind originally. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)