No Tautological Pirotology

---- By J. L. S.

We don't necessarily want our pirotological reflections to go 'tautological'. But it has been said so much for Dawkins's use of 'gene'. Cfr.

from wiki:

"[Dawkins] is using George C. Williams' definition of the gene as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency".[39]"

The 'that which...' looks like a FUNCTIONAL definition, which may lead to tautology-looking things, "If a gene persists, it persists" (cfr. Kramer on objection by R. B. Jones, this blog -- under Egoless Gene).

On the other hand, I haven't checked this, I would NOT define a gene "functionally" by what a gene does, would you? I would define it as a SPECIFIC thing in the hard-ware of real organisms. Defining a 'gene' in such an abstract term, no wonder the thing turns selfish?

JLS