Dawkins sues own webmaster

If Timonen did embezzle that money, I'd expect him to not only be sued, but to be imprisoned for many years.

I knew of this guy from the incident in which P Z Myers was expelled from seeing the Expelled movie. P Z speaks on the matter here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/rdf_v_timonen.php

That's the link I gave in the article. Did you mean here? Timonen is briefly mentioned as having shown up and been admitted to the showing of "Expelled" from which Myers was excluded.

... and what conclusion about the mechanisms or history of evolution rests on this litigation?

Joe Felsenstein said: ... and what conclusion about the mechanisms or history of evolution rests on this litigation?

Mike Elzinga said:

Joe Felsenstein said: ... and what conclusion about the mechanisms or history of evolution rests on this litigation?

"Survival of the Fittest?" ;-)

Honestly don't know whether I should feel sorry for Dawkins. In the short span of less than two months he is attacked by evolutionary biologists for his apparent ignorance of work done since the mid 1970s on inclusive fitness. And now this financial contretemps.....

... and what conclusion about the mechanisms or history of evolution rests on this litigation?

Honestly don’t know whether I should feel sorry for Dawkins. In the short span of less than two months he is attacked by evolutionary biologists for his apparent ignorance of work done since the mid 1970s on inclusive fitness.

??

are you sure you aren't thinking of EO Wilson here?

I Still can't understand why Dawkins didn't sue Keziah productions re. the silence in the creationist video "from a frog to a prince":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

This is being bandied about in creationist circles throughout the world still, even 13 years after the event. Why didn't he take the bull by the horns on this one ?

Further SciBlogs commentary on Timonen's youthful indiscretions here and here, with no doubt more to come.

As I understand it, the RD Foundation filed its case on a Friday afternoon, apparently doing its best to keep this low-profile. Maybe they're learning something about tactical politics at last.

Ichthyic said: Honestly don’t know whether I should feel sorry for Dawkins. In the short span of less than two months he is attacked by evolutionary biologists for his apparent ignorance of work done since the mid 1970s on inclusive fitness. ?? are you sure you aren't thinking of EO Wilson here?

Edward Wilson was misunderstanding kin selection as far back as Sociobiology, where he treated it as a subset of group selection (Misunderstanding Two of my 'Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection': Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 1979).

btw, there are some excellent questions and answers in the comments on that thread.

Sloan Wilson is the one pushing group selection because he can get it to work in a mathematical model. this has been going on for years, btw.

Bob O'H said: I find that whole debate silly - I don't think they're arguing about the biology now, but instead about which mathematical framework is best to use to analyse the biology.

My word! John Kwok must have one of the finest tipping-points any man was ever cursed with!

It's not that he's even generally full of both himself and nonsense, but that when that proverbial butterfly's wings tip his point, I wish I had never even learn the man existed, even as a joke.

Ichthyic said: EO Wilson, however, is the one Dawkins often accuses of ignoring most of the basic understanding of kin selection theory. Sloan Wilson is the one pushing group selection because he can get it to work in a mathematical model. this has been going on for years, btw. I saw Sloan Wilson give a talk here in Wellington a couple weeks back, in fact. He's currently trying to force his group selection hypotheses into the evolution of religion. It was pretty sad. seriously, I went in with an open mind, ready to hear his latest support for his group selection ideas. What I saw could best be summed up simply by saying: assumes his conclusions. No, Dawkins really does know his stuff regarding inclusive fitness theory; he and Hamilton were buds when Hamilton was first working it out. It's EO Wilson that's always been confused about it (yeah, I know, surprising given the subject of most of his work, but there it is), and Sloan Wilson that has always been pushing group selection models. I'm sure you caught a bit of the latest kerfuffle with that paper EO and Sloan Wilson published a couple months back. it's nothing new, and the summaries keep getting shorter and shorter, but Dawkins summarizes pretty well here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/508102-a-misguided-attack-on-kin-selection

Edward Wilson was misunderstanding kin selection as far back as Sociobiology, where he treated it as a subset of group selection (Misunderstanding Two of my 'Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection': Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 1979).

so, as you can see, this goes all the way back to some of the earliest publications on kin selection!

mrg said:

Bob O'H said: I find that whole debate silly - I don't think they're arguing about the biology now, but instead about which mathematical framework is best to use to analyse the biology.

I have indeed been finding it eye-glazing. It doesn't seem like anybody really disagrees with the observations of nature, as you say they are just arguing over the framing of theory. Which may be relevant on a professional level, but it hardly seems of interest to the rest of the world.

Legionbyanyothername said: My word! John Kwok must have one of the finest tipping-points any man was ever cursed with! It's not that he's even generally full of both himself and nonsense, but that when that proverbial butterfly's wings tip his point, I wish I had never even learn the man existed, even as a joke.

Legionbyanyothername said: My word! John Kwok must have one of the finest tipping-points any man was ever cursed with! It's not that he's even generally full of both himself and nonsense, but that when that proverbial butterfly's wings tip his point, I wish I had never even learn the man existed, even as a joke.

Just for those who are unfamiliar with the ongoing debate between David Sloan Wilson and Richard Dawkins, I am posting the link to the former's comments here:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/2010/09/open_letter_to_richard_dawkins.php

I do not claim to be familiar with inclusive fitness theory - I am not - but I do take seriously Wilson's assertion that Dawkins has ignored important work from the 1970s onward, starting with Hamilton's 1975 paper.

Does that mean that I am joining Wilson in his condemnation of Dawkins? No. I remain an agnostic on this simply because I'm not familiar with the debate. Nor do I denounce Dawkins as a writer, since I have stated here more than once, my admiration for him as a superb writer on science, especially with regards to evolutionary biology. But it is a bit disingenuous to claim that Dawkins is a practicing evolutionary biologist now - or may be fully cognizant of current developments - since he has not had any meaningful published work in the scientific literature since the 1980s if not before.

John Kwok said: But it is a bit disingenuous to claim that Dawkins is a practicing evolutionary biologist now - or may be fully cognizant of current developments - since he has not had any meaningful published work in the scientific literature since the 1980s if not before.

The Founding Mothers said:

John Kwok said: But it is a bit disingenuous to claim that Dawkins is a practicing evolutionary biologist now - or may be fully cognizant of current developments - since he has not had any meaningful published work in the scientific literature since the 1980s if not before.

Careful now, it's also a logical fallacy to suppose that just because somebody doesn't publish regularly in a field, they aren't up to date with the literature.

John Kwok said: I don't disagree with your observation:

The Founding Mothers said:

John Kwok said: But it is a bit disingenuous to claim that Dawkins is a practicing evolutionary biologist now - or may be fully cognizant of current developments - since he has not had any meaningful published work in the scientific literature since the 1980s if not before.

Careful now, it's also a logical fallacy to suppose that just because somebody doesn't publish regularly in a field, they aren't up to date with the literature.

However, it is David Sloan Wilson, am eminent evolutionary biologist, who is making this accusation - and one that seems to be supported by other professional evolutionary biologists - that Dawkins has ignored much of the work done since 1975. But it is still a fair point that Dawkins should not be regarded as a professional evolutionary biologist simply because he hasn't done much scientific work since the 1980s, if not before. It is an observation that I make not out of any sense of malice toward him - I don't have any - but one that would be substantiated by virtually every prominent evolutionary biologist I can think of.

Mindrover said: I am beginning to wonder if you are paid by the post on this issue.

Mindrover said:

John Kwok said: I don't disagree with your observation:

The Founding Mothers said:

John Kwok said: But it is a bit disingenuous to claim that Dawkins is a practicing evolutionary biologist now - or may be fully cognizant of current developments - since he has not had any meaningful published work in the scientific literature since the 1980s if not before.

Careful now, it's also a logical fallacy to suppose that just because somebody doesn't publish regularly in a field, they aren't up to date with the literature.

However, it is David Sloan Wilson, am eminent evolutionary biologist, who is making this accusation - and one that seems to be supported by other professional evolutionary biologists - that Dawkins has ignored much of the work done since 1975. But it is still a fair point that Dawkins should not be regarded as a professional evolutionary biologist simply because he hasn't done much scientific work since the 1980s, if not before. It is an observation that I make not out of any sense of malice toward him - I don't have any - but one that would be substantiated by virtually every prominent evolutionary biologist I can think of.

You bring up an interesting point, John. I find it odd, however, that you have brought the same point up nearly every time you have posted in this thread. A thread, I might add, that really does not hinge on Dawkins' knowledge of inclusive fitness theory. I am beginning to wonder if you are paid by the post on this issue.

mrg said: I presume being distracted by other issues, but now he is returning to his traditional MO.

John Kwok said: You simply have no idea, nor will I share them with you ...

I do not claim to be familiar with inclusive fitness theory - I am not - but I do take seriously Wilson’s assertion that Dawkins has ignored important work from the 1970s onward, starting with Hamilton’s 1975 paper.

This is not the topic, but John Kwok is making a somewhat valid point here. In Dawkins' defense, I don't think Dawkins really claims to be a cutting edge evolutionary biologist.

I saw Dawkins talk at a book store in NYC last winter, promoting what was then his new book. A friend of mine who is an attorney had come to town specifically for the talk.

I thought it was a rather decent exposition on evolutionary biology for lay people, but not to be confused with anything more.

I had looked briefly at the web site a while back, and found it to be very poorly designed, so I never went back to it.

Unlike most people, I don't have an extreme view on Dawkins one way or the other.

He does sometimes come across, to me, as a bit naive. The actual topic of this thread reinforces this belief in my mind.

He is, of course, a talented communicator of very basic concepts to the general public.

harold said: This is not the topic, but John Kwok is making a somewhat valid point here. In Dawkins' defense, I don't think Dawkins really claims to be a cutting edge evolutionary biologist. I saw Dawkins talk at a book store in NYC last winter, promoting what was then his new book. A friend of mine who is an attorney had come to town specifically for the talk. I thought it was a rather decent exposition on evolutionary biology for lay people, but not to be confused with anything more. I had looked briefly at the web site a while back, and found it to be very poorly designed, so I never went back to it. Unlike most people, I don't have an extreme view on Dawkins one way or the other. He does sometimes come across, to me, as a bit naive. The actual topic of this thread reinforces this belief in my mind. He is, of course, a talented communicator of very basic concepts to the general public.

I think Dawkins has irritated some evolutionary biologists like Wilson and others, for having the temerity to think that just because he, Dawkins, is a “talented communicator of very basic concepts to the general public”, that he is entitled to speak out as though he was standing on a literary equivalent of a makeshift platform in Hyde Park (London) and disseminating his views, whether others wished to hear them or not.

I think Dawkins has irritated some evolutionary biologists like Wilson and others, for having the temerity to think that just because he, Dawkins, is a “talented communicator of very basic concepts to the general public”, that he is entitled to speak out as though he was standing on a literary equivalent of a makeshift platform in Hyde Park (London) and disseminating his views, whether others wished to hear them or not.

Again, it should be noted that while Dawkins may be the foremost science popularizer on bioloogy now, there are others, both past (Stephen Jay Gould) and present (Edward O. Wilson, Sean B. Carroll), for whom it could be said that theirs have been far more important contributions to evolutionary biology than anything Dawkins did during his relatively brief career as an active professional evolutionary biologist.

harold said: Well, I won't disagree, because I am a huge fan of Stephen Jay Gould. Of course, Gould didn't talk much about molecular biology either, and was in many ways just as "controversial" as Dawkins. Although not as controversial as the original Jay Gould. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould

f I have at all - but only in response to Ichthyic’s defense of Dawkins.

uh, John?

I didn't bring it up to defend Dawkins, although YOU seem to be attacking him, irrationally, but that's nothing unexpected coming from you.

what I did question is whether you were stating the difficulties in understanding accurately.

Sloan Wilson (and EO) seem to somehow conclude Hamilton relied on haploid species when first deducing his hypotheses of kin selection.

Dawkins rightly pointed out that this was a minor point of Hamilton's thesis, only a couple of pages out of the entire paper, and the the vast majority of both his theoretical AND field work revolved around the the evolution of social behavior in NON haploid species.

the idea here is to correct misinformation, not to defend Dawkins.

Hell, Dawkins isn't even involved in doing research in this field any more, and hasn't for decades.

OTOH, he still isn't wrong about what he said, and is hardly ignorant of the field, either.

If you're going to go off on this, at least have some clue of the actual history involved here.

Probably asking a stone to give forth water, but what the hell.

It's not uncommon here for people to make summary judgements about Dawkins because they don't like him, but seriously, I am SO tired of your constant idiotic rants.

I used to have a major complaint about Dawkins during his “Blind Watchmaker” period - I felt that he completely neglected even the mention of molecular biology, even though making some mention of this huge relatively new source of converging evidence in favor of common descent would have made sense, even in a book for lay people

yup.

many of us had similar complaints when I was a grad student.

In this case, I do think that he wasn't sufficiently literate in the molecular biology of the day to really comfortably write that into the book, not that he left it out because he didn't think it important. He was, however, intimately acquainted with the relevant theoretical and field work, as that was his own educational background, and he was of course, contemporary with most of the people who broke significant ground like Hamilton, and later Trivers.

He's much more comfortable with the molecular stuff now, and in the areas he still feels out of depth, he tends to actually encourage others to ghostwrite (and mentions it).

thinking of "Ancestor's Tale" as an example.

Just to be clear, Dawkins is a writer, not a scientist, but that doesn't mean he should get short shrift because of the misstatements and misunderstandings of people like Sloan Wilson, or even EO Wilson.

His overall understanding of the field does surpass either one of those folks, readily, even considering Sociobiology and all of Wilson's work on social insects.

I think Dawkins has irritated some evolutionary biologists like Wilson and others

btw, John, I know you mention "some", but just to be clear:

it isn't Dawkins that is irritating most evolutionary biologists, it's Wilson (both Wilsons).

try to keep that straight.

but I do take seriously Wilson’s assertion that Dawkins has ignored important work from the 1970s onward, starting with Hamilton’s 1975 paper.

John, the only reason you take this "seriously" is because you don't like Dawkins.

you're a disgrace.

couldn't be a scientist if you wanted to.

can't avoid projecting personal bias everywhere you go.

Instead of sniping from obscurity about Dawkins' views on minor evolutionary academic controversies, how about writing your own book? If you don't like the way the man is popularizing your field, get off your ass and get to work!

Dale Husband said:

harold said: Well, I won't disagree, because I am a huge fan of Stephen Jay Gould. Of course, Gould didn't talk much about molecular biology either, and was in many ways just as "controversial" as Dawkins. Although not as controversial as the original Jay Gould. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould

Were they related?

Ichthyic said: f I have at all - but only in response to Ichthyic’s defense of Dawkins. uh, John? I didn't bring it up to defend Dawkins, although YOU seem to be attacking him, irrationally, but that's nothing unexpected coming from you. what I did question is whether you were stating the difficulties in understanding accurately. Sloan Wilson (and EO) seem to somehow conclude Hamilton relied on haploid species when first deducing his hypotheses of kin selection. Dawkins rightly pointed out that this was a minor point of Hamilton's thesis, only a couple of pages out of the entire paper, and the the vast majority of both his theoretical AND field work revolved around the the evolution of social behavior in NON haploid species. the idea here is to correct misinformation, not to defend Dawkins. Hell, Dawkins isn't even involved in doing research in this field any more, and hasn't for decades. OTOH, he still isn't wrong about what he said, and is hardly ignorant of the field, either. If you're going to go off on this, at least have some clue of the actual history involved here. Probably asking a stone to give forth water, but what the hell. It's not uncommon here for people to make summary judgements about Dawkins because they don't like him, but seriously, I am SO tired of your constant idiotic rants.

Ichthyic said: but I do take seriously Wilson’s assertion that Dawkins has ignored important work from the 1970s onward, starting with Hamilton’s 1975 paper. John, the only reason you take this "seriously" is because you don't like Dawkins. you're a disgrace. couldn't be a scientist if you wanted to. can't avoid projecting personal bias everywhere you go.

Were they related?

Ichthyic said: I think Dawkins has irritated some evolutionary biologists like Wilson and others btw, John, I know you mention "some", but just to be clear: it isn't Dawkins that is irritating most evolutionary biologists, it's Wilson (both Wilsons). try to keep that straight.

In this case, I do think that he wasn’t sufficiently literate in the molecular biology of the day to really comfortably write that into the book, not that he left it out because he didn’t think it important. He was, however, intimately acquainted with the relevant theoretical and field work, as that was his own educational background, and he was of course, contemporary with most of the people who broke significant ground like Hamilton, and later Trivers.

For the record, the robber baron Jay Gould was not born rich nor exclusively of "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" stock.

He was from the rural middle class and had substantial Celtic (Scottish) ancestry.

There is nothing wrong with being of Anglo-Saxon descent but for accuracy, Jay Gould wasn't upper class or "preppy".

harold said: John Kwok -

I think Dawkins has irritated some evolutionary biologists like Wilson and others, for having the temerity to think that just because he, Dawkins, is a “talented communicator of very basic concepts to the general public”, that he is entitled to speak out as though he was standing on a literary equivalent of a makeshift platform in Hyde Park (London) and disseminating his views, whether others wished to hear them or not.

I have to agree with the comment above - we are all entitled to do that. Furthermore, it actually takes time and sometimes money to learn Dawkins's point of view on something, so those who don't wish to hear them can avoid them pretty easily. I used to have a major complaint about Dawkins during his "Blind Watchmaker" period - I felt that he completely neglected even the mention of molecular biology, even though making some mention of this huge relatively new source of converging evidence in favor of common descent would have made sense, even in a book for lay people. I'll note that "not adding much new since 1975" could be said to be a theme there as well. Wilson and the others may have a similar, albeit more subtle, point. Dawkins does include decent mention of molecular biology in his current stuff, incidentally.

Again, it should be noted that while Dawkins may be the foremost science popularizer on bioloogy now, there are others, both past (Stephen Jay Gould) and present (Edward O. Wilson, Sean B. Carroll), for whom it could be said that theirs have been far more important contributions to evolutionary biology than anything Dawkins did during his relatively brief career as an active professional evolutionary biologist.

Well, I won't disagree, because I am a huge fan of Stephen Jay Gould. Of course, Gould didn't talk much about molecular biology either, and was in many ways just as "controversial" as Dawkins. Although not as controversial as the original Jay Gould. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould

harold said:

Were they related?

I don't think so. Stephen Jay Gould was of Jewish descent, and I think mentioned being descended from Ellis Island era immigrants somewhere, whereas the outrageous nineteenth century financier (and near contemporary of Darwin) was mainly of Early Euro-American English and Scottish descent. I am a fan of Stephen Jay Gould in that I love his writings and admire his work. I am something of a "fan" of Jay Gould in that I enjoy learning about that historical period and find him an interesting character. Not a particularly positive one. A number of historians claim that his villainy was exaggerated, and he had some admirable traits (he was an autodidact who wrote a book of local history at age 20) and was a creature of his times, but still not positive.

Joe Felsenstein said: ... and what conclusion about the mechanisms or history of evolution rests on this litigation?

Robert Byers said: I can't see biblical creationists having this kind of a disaster. Let all be wary.

Robert Byers said:

Joe Felsenstein said: ... and what conclusion about the mechanisms or history of evolution rests on this litigation?

It is suggestive of following. 1, Lack of research in credibility of persons relevant to making conclusions/decisions. Like evolution. 2, Need for better analysis of how things are working and not just carry on blindly. Like evolution. 3, Greater attention to motives and character before accepting experts conclusions. Like in evolution. 4, The need to have God bless ones business . I can't see biblical creationists having this kind of a disaster. Let all be wary.

Dale Husband said:

harold said: Well, I won't disagree, because I am a huge fan of Stephen Jay Gould. Of course, Gould didn't talk much about molecular biology either, and was in many ways just as "controversial" as Dawkins. Although not as controversial as the original Jay Gould. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould

Were they related?

Robert Byers said:

Joe Felsenstein said: ... and what conclusion about the mechanisms or history of evolution rests on this litigation?

It is suggestive of following. 1, Lack of research in credibility of persons relevant to making conclusions/decisions. Like evolution. 2, Need for better analysis of how things are working and not just carry on blindly. Like evolution. 3, Greater attention to motives and character before accepting experts conclusions. Like in evolution. 4, The need to have God bless ones business . I can't see biblical creationists having this kind of a disaster. Let all be wary.

My word! I'm afraid I'm tired just scrolling past JK now. I'll go back to enjoying the threads he or that total *%$# FL haven't yet dropped a &%#$ in.

[aside] Cheese! To just drop your pants like that, and not notice the reaction he gets!

Bob O'H said:

Dale Husband said:

harold said: Well, I won't disagree, because I am a huge fan of Stephen Jay Gould. Of course, Gould didn't talk much about molecular biology either, and was in many ways just as "controversial" as Dawkins. Although not as controversial as the original Jay Gould. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould

Were they related?

Hey, are you denying common descent? :-)

Legionbyanyothername said: My word! I'm afraid I'm tired just scrolling past JK now. I'll go back to enjoying the threads he or that total *%$# FL haven't yet dropped a &%#$ in. [aside] Cheese! To just drop your pants like that, and not notice the reaction he gets!

/* Hide user comments on Panda's Thumb */ .comment-author-john_kwok .comment-content, .comment-author-fl .comment-content { display:none !important; }

Well, darn. Line breaks seem to have gotten lost in the transition. Just set one designator per line and you should be ok.

John Kwok said: No he isn't:

Bob O'H said:

Dale Husband said:

harold said: Well, I won't disagree, because I am a huge fan of Stephen Jay Gould. Of course, Gould didn't talk much about molecular biology either, and was in many ways just as "controversial" as Dawkins. Although not as controversial as the original Jay Gould. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould

Were they related?

Hey, are you denying common descent? :-)

He's merely wondering whether Jay Gould and Stephen Jay Gould were related, and that, I can assure you, isn't so for reasons which have been stated by several people posting here.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: I can't see biblical creationists having this kind of a disaster. Let all be wary.

You can't? What about the suit Ken Ham was involved in with his "colleagues" in Australia? What about Kent Hovind winding up in jail for tax evasion? Aren't both of those disasters among biblical creationists? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Classic Byers. Garbled, shambolic, skating on the very verge of word-salad, confused as to point and subject, and with a positively Macgonigalic grasp of bathetic juxtaposition ("robbery and trust" is superb), yet somehow managing to convey a wrongness so monumental as to be splendid.

What am I bid for this perfect bijou masterwork?

Dave Luckett said: What am I bid for this perfect bijou masterwork?

Robert Byers said: The tax thin

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: I can't see biblical creationists having this kind of a disaster. Let all be wary.

You can't? What about the suit Ken Ham was involved in with his "colleagues" in Australia? What about Kent Hovind winding up in jail for tax evasion? Aren't both of those disasters among biblical creationists? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

\ Tax stuff is just a reflection on the persons morality. i don't this person anyways. the fight amongst AIG is intellectual and relationship. Not about robbery and trust. Different.

W. H. Heydt said: Doesn't acting in an illegal fashion reflect on the kind of person Hovind is?

You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.