Reading Dawkins may be more effective than reading Darwin, to appreciate descent with modification and differential survival as an optimization algorithm.
Reading Darwin may be more effective than reading Dawkins, to appreciate what intellectual work went into following contemporary evidence to that conclusion, in the face of a world filled with bias and confusion.
Reading Dawkins OR Darwin is—and I think that is Robin’s point—more valuable than the same time spent reading blogs expounding shaky speculations on evolution.
a “just the insights” version will probably leave out any caveats
Spectacularly so in the case of the Waterfall software development process. It’s as if the “classic” in question had said “Drowning kittens” at the end of page 1, and of course the beginning of page 2 goes right on to say ”...is evil, don’t do it”. But everyone reads page one which has a lovely diagram and goes, “Oh yeah; drowning kittens. Wonderful idea, let’s make that the official government norm for feline management.”
Reading Dawkins OR Darwin is—and I think that is Robin’s point—more valuable than the same time spent reading blogs expounding shaky speculations on evolution.
100% agree that is Robin’s point and another 100% with Robin’s point. Hmm. Wrong place to throw 100% around. Let’s see… 99.5% and 83% respectively. Akrasia considerations and the intrinsic benefits of the social experience of engaging with a near-in-time social network account for the other 17%.
Reading Dawkins may be more effective than reading Darwin, to appreciate descent with modification and differential survival as an optimization algorithm.
Reading Darwin may be more effective than reading Dawkins, to appreciate what intellectual work went into following contemporary evidence to that conclusion, in the face of a world filled with bias and confusion.
Reading Dawkins OR Darwin is—and I think that is Robin’s point—more valuable than the same time spent reading blogs expounding shaky speculations on evolution.
I’m underlining your point about Darwin—just getting the insights doesn’t give you information about the process of thinking them out.
Also, a “just the insights” version will probably leave out any caveats the originator of the insights included.
Spectacularly so in the case of the Waterfall software development process. It’s as if the “classic” in question had said “Drowning kittens” at the end of page 1, and of course the beginning of page 2 goes right on to say ”...is evil, don’t do it”. But everyone reads page one which has a lovely diagram and goes, “Oh yeah; drowning kittens. Wonderful idea, let’s make that the official government norm for feline management.”
100% agree that is Robin’s point and another 100% with Robin’s point. Hmm. Wrong place to throw 100% around. Let’s see… 99.5% and 83% respectively. Akrasia considerations and the intrinsic benefits of the social experience of engaging with a near-in-time social network account for the other 17%.