Talk:Stephen Jay Gould

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 A Wikipedian removed Stephen Jay Gould from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Jay Gould article.
Wikipedia CD Selection Stephen Jay Gould is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] How did he die?

There's nothing about his death in this article besides the year at the beginning.

There was something on this in the section 'Personal Life'. I have moved this info to the end of that section to make it clearer and added a little bit more information (this info was from an obituary in Melbourne's The Age newspaper on 24 May, 2002, which was a reprint of a Washington Post article). Please remember to sign contributions. --jjron 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stepchildren: which wife?

It says "Gould was twice married; to Deborah Lee in 1965 which ended in divorce, and to artist Rhonda Roland Shearer in 1995. Gould had two children, Jesse and Ethan, by his first marriage, and two stepchildren, Jade and London."

Which wife, if either, was mother of the stepchildren? Knotwork 07:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

It's not clear that Gould was a "radical socialist", IMO. His parents were Communists and he knew and appreciated Marx, but as far as I know he was never a member of any socialist group. And of course, he was involved in anti-racist activism and (somewhat peripherally, I think) with Science for the People. But in Reinventing Darwin, Niles Eldredge says that Gould wasn't a Marxist. And when asked about his politics in a Skeptic interview, Gould said only that he preferred Clinton to Dole. He also wrote at least one mild defense of GM foods.

It was always my very strong impression that Gould was a Marxist (in spirit if not a card-carrier) and that this (to a greater or lesser extent) informed his scientific work. I'm surprised that the article seems to refute this, although I'm not familiar enough with his popular or biographical work to give a catagorical opinion. As an aside, I'm also very surprised generally at the fairly dismissive tone of the article to Gould's work- the 'Controversies' section is three times longer than the '...as a biologist' [and should it not be '...as a geologist' anyway?] section. I can state catagorically that Gould is intellectually a well regarded figure in palaeontological circles (for the most part, anyway- and even Conway-Morris liked him once!), and I suspect that much of the negative feeling regarding his work stems fundamentally from the somewhat frosty relationship between neontologists and palaeontologists that is an unfortunate feature of the evolutionary community. I certainly think that very few informed scientists would question the quality of his scholarship, even if they do not agree with his ideas. Badgerpatrol 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
he was to some degree an admirer of Marxism, although he was by no means a communist

Should be reworded. 'Communist' is horribly ambiguous (Stalinist? Leninist? Marxist?). Maybe to something like:

politically, he sympathized with left-wing views, and was, to some degree, a Marxist.

Depending on the interpretation of the adjective 'communist', its inclusion becomes either redundant or unnecessary. Sir Paul 23:11, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

A quote from Gould illustrating his political views would provide bones for this rather flabby assertion. Not every progressive liberal humanist realist is a "Marxist"!

Gould said that he considered his views "a private matter" and chose not to discuss them in his writing. (See chapter 9 of the Structure.) So most of what we know about him comes from what his friends and colleagues said about him. He never denied being a Marxist (although he famously said that Eldredge was not one), but nor does it appear from my reading that he ever claimed to be one, either. 121a0012 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I spent much time lately reading Gould ; I never saw anything that could point to a political position. In some cases, I noticed that he criticized people for having a charicatural view upon Marxism/Socialism/... but it's the only occurence that could entice to any kind of commentary about Marxism. I remember several occasions, though, where he expressed positive opinions about Adam Smith...--195.221.0.6 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on Gould

Biologist John Maynard Smith has claimed that "Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by nonbiologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists." He also claimed Gould "is giving nonbiologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory." (Both quotes appear in Robert Wright's essay The Accidental Creationist).

Summary of some points made (click "View Other Revisions" to see details of this discussion):

  • John Maynard Smith is is a biologist and not a popular science writer.
  • Gould's work may not be solidly in the biological mainstream, but it's still generally within the purview of legitimate science.
  • Robert Wright may be likelier to be the fringe figure here, not Stephen Jay Gould. A quick assay of Mr. Wright's work on the Web shows his positions lie on fairly shakey ground. For instance, he criticizes Gould for neglecting to notice that there is a general trend from simplicity to complexity in evolution, but this is a trend that is not there and not taken as a mainstream position.
  • The power of historical contingency is a major theme in Gould's popular writing, and his most famous professional work (punctuated equilibrium) too. He's the last person I'd have suspected of being tied to historical determinism.
  • Richard Lewontin was the chairman of Gould's department at Harvard, and made the claim, "There is nothing in Marx, Lenin, or Mao that is or can be in contradiction with a particular set of phenomena in the objective world." This may mean that Lewontin views science and ideology as separate domains, or perhaps mean that science that seems to contradict Marx, Lenin, or Mao is necessarily wrong.
  • Gould once used Lewontin's comment in a metaphorical talk on punctuated equilibrium many years ago, which made some view him as sharing Lewontin's political beliefs. However, Gould has commented that punctuated equilibrium was more Niles' idea than his. Niles has a different political background than Gould, so with regards to punctuated equilibrium, Gould's politics may in fact be completely irrelevant anyway.
  • Gould has been heavily involved in heated debates regarding sociobiology, and has a firm stance in the "anti" camp. Some have bashed Gould, claiming this "jihad" to be wrong and suggesting that Gould must be tainted by communist beliefs for taking the positions he has.

It seems to me that some of this would be good to place in the main article--how about that, some actual useful content coming out of mere dialectical wrangling...  :-) --LMS

The second to last point is inaccurate. Suspicions that Gould's scienctific opinions are influenced by his politics arise in regards to his views on sociobiology, not punctuated equilibrium.

Not entirely so. See his discussion of the Beverly Halstead British Museum cladism controversy (Structure, pp. 984–85). 121a0012 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

re: baseball: actually, an entire book of his essays on baseball has just been published.

Some additional comments from a molecular evolutionist (JH Badger, read my papers in Journal of molecular evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, etc.)

The idea that "evolutionary biologists" as a group disrepected Gould is simply false. Of course partisians of sociobiology were not fans of Gould, as he harshly criticized their movement. But the vast majority of evolutionary biologists these days have no interest whatsoever in the sociobiological debate, which is far more prominent in the popular scientific literature than it is in serious scientific literature.

In addition, it's worth understanding that the forefront of evolution, like the rest of biology, is strongly molecular, and molecular evolutionists have long established that while natural selection is an important source of evolution, the majority of differences between species at a molecular level are not due to natural selection, but to other sources such as mutational bias and drift. Thus, Gould certainly was correct to question the degree of natural selection at higher levels as well.

Q: is Gould's name taken from Jay Gould, the robber baron? -Litefantastic 18:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Badger, does somebody somewhere actually give you a publicly funded tenure to write this Gouldian-style sophistry? After reading carefully through your paragraph, I have concluded that you have honestly said almost nothing at all and what you have said timidly plays with the ashes of Lysenko affectionately, much like Gould himself. Do they have a club where all of you wildly gesturing, gammy-eyed poseurs practice this stuff quietly to launch on an unsuspecting public when it is sufficiently polished? Sir, it is gibberish. (Anonymously contributed by Anonymous User:211.27.137.236, whose contribution can also be enjoyed at Talk:Impact event.)

[edit] "Dawkins...strongly advocated [Evolutionary Psychology]"

Can you give a reference for this? --163.1.97.11 18:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Kevin MacDonald (1998). Culture of Critique. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-96113-3. p.30-38

I recommend removal of the Kevin B. MacDonald quotes. MacDonald has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "a professor who accuses Jews of devising an immigration policy specifically intended to dilute and weaken the white population of America." He does not represent mainstream evolutionary psychology, and he has been denounced by other evolutionary psychologists. I find his quotes here irrelevant, inflammatory, and offensive to Gould's memory. I'm no Gouldian apologist, either, but a reductionist-gradualist critical of Gould's work.

UPDATE: Removed!

[edit] Call for help with quotes

I have been working on greatly extending and improving the Wikiquote article on Gould. As I mention in the talk page there, one of the things we're lacking is more and better contra citations (right now both of the oppositional quotes we have can be traced ultimately to Maynard Smith). If some more Wikipedians can help out, I would be obliged. (I'm presently working my way through Gould's popular literature, and don't have a lot of exposure to other evolutionary biologists other than Dover so I'm not in a good position to do this myself.) 121a0012 15:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] More on the controversies

One reason for such strong antipathies was that Gould presented his ideas as a revolutionary new way of understanding evolution that relegated adaptationism to a much less important position.

Is there a cite for this? I don't see this in any of Gould's books (of which I have read all but two); indeed, in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory he goes to some length to portray this view of his views as urban legend. (See the Appendix to chapter 9, pp. 972–1024.) He points out that punctuated equilibrium (the target of most of the attacks described in this section) makes no claims about microevolutionary mechanism, as it is a theory about how known microevolutionary processes scale in geological time resulting in macroevolution. As for adaptationism, he reiterates, throughout part II of the Structure, that his claim is only for a greater relative frequency of non-adaptive processes, not that adaptation is unimportant. His denial is specifically of panadaptationism, not of the importance of adaptation generally.

Regarding the attack of Maynard Smith, Gould writes:

Such statements stand in welcome contrast to the frequent grousing of strict Darwinians who often say something like: “but we know all this, and I said so right here in the footnote to page 582 of my 1967 paper; you have stated nothing new; nothing that can alter the practice of the field.“ I will never forget the climactic moment of the Chicago macroevolution meeting [in 1980], when John Maynard Smith rose to make such an ungenerous statement about punctuated equilibrium and macroevolutionary theory in general—and George Oster responded to him, “Yes, John, you may have had the bicycle, but you didn't ride it.” (Structure, p. 1023)

Gould attributes some of the negative reaction to punctuated equilibrium to a culture clash between paleontologists and neontologists (i.e., those who study living populations). The original paper was written for a paleontological audience, and uses words like sudden and rapid which mean something very different to paleontologists than they mean to most people. Some readers (so Gould says) who were unfamiliar with paleontological jargon mistook this to mean that he and Eldredge were making claims for truly saltational evolutionary change, which would be quite a radical notion.

121a0012 03:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Experimental Treatment for Abdominal Mesothelioma

Does anyone know what the experimental treatment was to treat Gould's abdominal mesothelioma? Cultofpj 14:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he received a form of the trimodal treatment, which consists of "(1) extra pleural pneumonectomy (removal of lung and lung linings and part of diaphragm, (2) followed by post operative chemo (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and cisplatin for 4 to 6 cycles), and (3) radiation therapy (55 Gy)." This information is gathered from [1]. The same source also mentions that he underwent an experimental form of chemotheraphy where the chemicals were applied directly through a tube in his abdomen. Shawn M. O'Hare 18:51 4 November 2005 (GMT)

I added a paragraph about his Gould's medicale marijuana usage. This can be considered part of his experimental treatment. Shawn M. O'Hare

The paragraph that "Members of Gould's family are suing two radiologists ..." (posted in May 2005) has struck me for a while as trivial. Perhaps it would acquire importance if someone was proven to have been negligent, etc., but I can't find any news of that sort. If it's still in the courts then we'll either read about the findings in the newspaper or else there'll be an acquital & the paragraph will turn out to be irrelevant anyways. I don't know the etiquette for making edits -- I'm going to let this sit here for a few days, check for replies, & (if there's no protest) delete the paragraph.

[edit] Nonoverlapping Magisteria

Gould also wrote an essay entitled Nonoverlapping Magisteria where he essentially ceded the field of ethics to religion. I'm not sure I can write a properly impartial summary on this, but I do feel strongly that this essay is significant enough that it, and its consequences, deserve some mention here. Is anyone willing to rise up to this challenge? Alienus 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

More than just that essay; the books Rocks of Ages and The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox, both mentioned in the bibliography, treat the subject in extenso. I would not for a moment say that he "ceded the field of ethics to religion"; rather, he categorically excluded ethics and religion from the domain of science. I don't have the philosophy background to write an unbiased article or section on the topic, so I'm not volunteering, but I agree that it's an important idea and should be treated in more detail. 121a0012 04:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that information. I have some of the background, but neither enough familiarity with nor impartiality towards this material to give a neutral description. We've got two people agreeing that the topic deserves a place. Anyone up to writing it? Alienus 19:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More claims of political bias

Gould was not a practicing "socialist"? His attacks on Wilson and EP in general were clearly motivated by his Marxist belief. Gould and his cronies denied a genetic basis of human behavior chiefly because the Marxian dogma that human beings, whilst be a product of evolution as the rest of the animal kings, they are immune from instincts and are products of enviroment, or better yet - social engineering. The very same man who refused to entertain the notions of Creationism because of it's bunk science was guilty of similar chicanery.

I am no fan of McDonald, but I take issue with Wiki for censoring his quote because one person objected to his views on Jews and immigration etc or Morris Dees has.

(the preceding unsigned comment was contributed by anonymous user 66.142.213.73)
To avoid original research, it might help to ground this conclusion in some references. I'm betting that Pinker and Dennett are two people who have written on this, particularly in "How The Mind Works" and "The Blank Slate" (Pinker), and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (Dennett). Alienus 18:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course, such attacks smack of armchair psychoanalysis. I'd consider E.O. Wilson's comments, if he has made any, as more relevant, since he was both the subject of Gould's criticism and a colleague of Gould at Harvard, and might therefore have actual direct knowledge of Gould's politics. (One presumes that the crowd who constantly raise this claim would not seriously consider the opinions of Richard Lewontin, Gould's department chairman and research collaborator, since he definitely is an eeeeeeeeevil Marxist and therefore not to be trusted.)
I would point out, by the way, that 66.142.213.73's claim that "Gould and his cronies denied a genetic basis of human behavior" is flatly false. Gould claimed, rather, that such a basis was trivially true, and therefore uninteresting. There are a number of quotations from Gould's essays which bear this out, available on Wikiquote. 121a0012 01:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you claiming that Gould's political beliefs are undocumented or that the idea that they impacted his writing on science is undocumented/suspect? Are you familiar with "Science for the People"? --Rikurzhen 02:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It appears to be a blog with an ugly pink color scheme. If there's more to it than than, perhaps you should write an article on it.
Gould's political beliefs are not so much undocumented as inconsistently documented; there is more written by other people allegedly about his politics than he himself seems to have written, and even what he wrote was somewhat contradictory. I spent most of the past spring and summer reading Gould's published books and can state with some certainty that he rarely mentions his own political beliefs. (I also came to the conclusion that most of the attacks on Gould that I had seen were the result of not having read what he actually wrote. There are enough scientific and logical issues in his complete theory that there really is no need to invent Marxist conspiracies.) 121a0012 03:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Since you've read through his work recently, would you be willing to add something about nonoverlapping magisteria?
Try a Google search for Gould and "Science for the people". AFAIK, it was a movement/group/magazine(?) that Gould, Lewontin and others founded. They had somewhat regular meetings -- I imagine it would have been similar to the Vienna Circle. I know little more than that. John Carroll has a good essay critque of Gould [2] which points out John Alcock's book -- Alcock, John. The Triumph of Sociobiology. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. -- as the source for the claim that Marxism motivated Gould's opinions. --Rikurzhen 08:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies 'editorialising'

I removed this section, after the Maynard criticisms:

It is important, however, to recognize that these quotes are all from biologists who had quarreled with Gould at some point. Few evolutionary biologists without a stake in sociobiology or evolutionary psychology were as critical of Gould. Evolutionary biology, even more than in most fields of science, is filled with strong personalities who often develop personal antipathies which lead them to criticize each other personally.

For the following reasons: It is important ... to recognize seems very POV in that the question remains 'who decides it is important?' While I generally agree with the sentiment of the paragraph, it is not actually presenting any facts, just one wikipedians opinion and as such shouldn't really be here. The last '...strong personalities...' sentence apart from being unprovable is really just an ad hominem argument and should definitely be removed even if the rest remains.

I think a better approach would be to note at the beginning of the criticisms that most critics of Gould were evo pyschs and sociobiologists and leave it up to the reader to work out why from their quotations.

In order to show that Gould was not universally loathed in science circles it would be better to note as such and provide quotes praising him or citation figures or the like. Ashmoo 23:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are several such quotes in the "Quotations about..." section on Wikiquote:Stephen Jay Gould all of which appear to be well-sourced. The Numbers/Shermer excerpt is probably the best, although it comes from a historian and not a scientist, as most of the positive quotes are from a 25th anniversary publication and thus expected to be laudatory. You might also consider the comments made by J.H. Badger on this very talk page. 121a0012 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ashmoo. I undeleted the text and provided (in my edit, not the article) the following reason: "The 'editorial note' below was removed. I believe it should stay in place. The above quotations by Maynard Smith et al. are fair and properly cited, but they are misleading left by themselves. Gould was not considered by most of his colleagues to be so confused or daft. He was a respected scientist with respected opinions. The note below puts them into the context of the controversies, and is in accord with what most historians of science write about the debates in evolutionary theory. To remove this note would unbalance this Wikipedia entry." Providing positive quotations could also work, but not as well or as efficiently as this brief little paragraph. Miguel Chavez 16:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made several changes to the Controversies section, in hopes of making clear what the controversies are, and what they are about. To that end, I've separated out criticism by Maynard Smith on general evolutionary issues, by Pinker, Tooby, et al. onsociobiology/evo. psych., and by Conway Morris on evolutionary history.
  • To the Maynard Smith section, I've added a quote and a couple of citations that reveal Maynard Smith's more nuanced view concerning Gould's contributions, and also added, ever so briefly, two of the major points on which they disagreed. I think that this helps add balance to the article, and is a better way than having a paragraph implying quarrelling disqualifies a point of view. Over many years, Maynard Smith and Gould disagreed on a variety of issues, but generally conducted their dispute in a most collegial way (see quote and citation I added). There is some evidence that they later became a bit harsher in their view of one another, but I've no conclusive evidence on this point.
  • I've moved Tooby and Cosmides' quote to the sociobiology controversy paragraph, because that's where it belongs. These criticisms are then immediately answered not by some editorially interpolated disclaimer, but by Gould's counterarguments, referenced to Gould 1992. It is good that someone has already noted in this parargraph that Dawkins and Gould agreed on many things, despite their disagreement on others-- it helps balance and NPOV.
  • I've made Conway Morris's critique of Wonderful Life a separate paragraph, and also added in what Gould and Conway Morris's points of disagreement are.
  • I've removed the disclaimer paragraph that began "It is important...". I agree with the criticisms made of this paragraph above concerning its POVness. The claims of the paragraph are also not true. Criticism of Gould is by no means limited to sociobiologists (e.g. Ernst Mayr, Conway Morris; Maynard Smith [although Maynard Smith might be thought of as a sociobiologist, his disagreements with Gould dealt with much broader issues; and Maynard Smith was a strong critic of Wisonian sociobiology: his review, with N. Warren (Evolution 36:620-627, 1982), of Lumsden and Wilson's Genes, Mind, and culture that decisively critiqued the strong program of human sociobiology was all the more damning because it was written with such evident sympathy]). And it is, in my opinion, not at all true that evolutionary biologists are more prone toward personal antipathy and criticism than other scientists. In my experience, sytematic biologists are much more cantankerous and harsh on one another than evolutionary biologists. But regardless, both my view and the one expressed in the paragraph are mere opinions, and barring some study that shows otherwise, neither opinion belongs in an encyclopedia. Just as I've added some stuff from Maynard Smith favorable to Gould, to show that MS's view was more nuanced, it should be easy to find something from Dawkins in a similar vein, and also some unalloyed praise for Gould from someone who wholly agrees with him. This is the way to show their are two sides, or actually, multiple sides, to the controversies. 131.210.4.95 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Mchavez. My explanation of the changes I made in the article was being posted at the same time you were posting your note above (I encountered an edit conflict), so I had not seen your note before writing the explanation. I hope you can see why I removed the "editiorial note", but at the same time I've tried to organize and place the criticisms in context. I did not remove the "invisible" explanatory note that you placed in the article, as it was your view, and not part of the article. I see now that others have read your "invisible" note, and seem to think it is referring to the article as it currently reads (which is wrong, since the Maynard Smith quotes have changed, and the Tooby & Cosmides quote has been moved, and the following paragraph is not the "editorial note"). I think your "invisible" note should be removed, but I don't want to do so without giving you a chance to comment or do it yourself. 131.210.4.95 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do. This is a public document and I believe your changes, and assessments, are accurate and fully nuanced. Best, Miguel Chavez 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agassiz Professorship and land snails

The Alexander Agassiz Professors of Zoology in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard are endowed titles, not chairs, and there are usually several Agassiz Professors at one time. It is thus not correct to say Gould held the post once occupied by Ernst Mayr. I've also corrected the bit about his work on land snails, and moved it to the section "Gould as a biologist".131.210.4.95 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gould "Exaggerated" or "Lied"

  • Hello Alienus. I changed the sentence in the "Controversies" section from "exaggerated to the point of falsehood" to "excessively exaggerated." You reverted it because you thought it sounded awkward. But I must plea, I did not do this for stylistic reasons, but for the accuracy of the article. Most of Gould's critics who make the charge say he generally exaggerates the revolutionary importance of his ideas. Few charge that he spreads "falsehoods." I believe that the wording is too strong and thereby mischaracterizes his critics. Miguel Chavez 11 January 2006.
I should point out that, in his own writing, Gould makes few claims for "the revolutionary importance of his ideas", and in places explicitly disclaims such an attitude. So without further context as to specific claims that Gould made, and his detractors' counterclaims, it's very difficult to pass judgment on statements of this kind. If his critics are attacking something he didn't say, then their statements should be discussed in this light. 121a0012 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not going to dispute this detail. Alienus 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bell Curve

This is the 3rd article I've cut or commented on:

Gould was also the author of The Mismeasure of Man, a study of the history of psychometrics and intelligence testing as a form of scientific racism. The most recent edition challenges the arguments of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve. Though with so much contention in the field, The Mismeasure of Man has generated perhaps the most controversy of all Gould's books, and has been subject to widespread praise and extensive criticism, including claims by some prominent scientists that Gould had misrepresented their work. [3]

Can anyone list even ONE argument or claim Murray makes in the Bell Curve, which Gould disgrees with?

Or at least list the points Gould imputes to Murray? (So we can maybe read the book and see if Murray wrote what Gould said he wrote.) --Uncle Ed 23:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed - What exactly is your claim here? Because clearly an updated edition of MoM came out with a entire chapter dedicated to BC. --JPotter 09:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Jason, you should never use the rollback button to undo a commented edit; it is only for vandalism. (I apologise if you just copied the rollback format - I'd advise not to do that, if that was the case.) Noisy | Talk 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Understood. --JPotter 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like the article to name 2 or 3 of the arguments which The Bell Curve makes, along with Gould's rejoinders. Failing that, at least list a few arguments which Gould says the book makes.

I've added to the intro of The Mismeasure of Man the fact that 3 or 4 men dispute Gould's account of other researcher's arguments. Each of these men says that Gould misquotes or misrepresents the other researchers.

Like, Gould says that A argued for idea X. And Gould says that X is false.

Meanwhile, A and some others say, "Wait a minute! A never said X!!"

So how do we handle a case like this?

I'd suggest:

  1. State that Gould oppposes idea X
    • Explain why Gould opposes X
  2. Mention that Gould attributes advocacy of idea X to to person A
    • Include denial by A that he ever advocated X
    • Mention any other writer who also says that A didn't advocate X

Is this a good plan? --Uncle Ed 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the why part would be dangerous, as it would require interpretation. Best to just say what type of criticisms there have been, and provide illustrations with quotes or links.
However, I don't think adding to this article would be the right place: the section on Gould as a biologist is the bit that's sadly lacking. Noisy | Talk 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the picture of Gould from a Marxist organization?

I'm sure there pictures of Gould available at politically neutral sources. How is permission obtained to use those pictures at Wikipedia? Using the picture of Gould located at Marxists.org appears to just be an effort to unfairly highlight Gould's politics and paint him as a politically driven scientist, especially where his book Mismeasure of Man is concerned.

[edit] Status of the Puntuational Paradigm

There has been a change in the third paragraph which someone is insistent on keeping, but immediately contradicts what was said before, and is at odds with the facts. The original paragraph read as follows:

Early in his career he helped Niles Eldredge develop and popularize the theory of punctuated equilibrium, where evolutionary change occurs relatively rapidly to comparatively longer periods of evolutionary stability. According to Gould, punctuated equilibrium overthrew a key pillar of neo-Darwinism. Some evolutionary biologists have argued that the theory was an important insight, but merely modified neo-Darwinism in a manner which was fully compatible with what had been known before.

This is a rather fair and balanced assessment of mainstream opinion. The following sentence however, which is somewhat convoluted, pushes a more radical interpretation.

Many evolutionary biologists don't regard the theory well,[2] and some argue in general that his writing is good, but his presentation of science is consistently misleading.

Among those in a position to know, namely professional paleontologists, the theory has been lionized. Among evolutionists generally it is regarded as an important contribution, but not a serious challenge to the synthetic theory. I tried to reword the sentence but that just lead to an exposition on punctuated equilibrium, and distracted away from the main topic, Stephen Gould. I have written on the Punctuated equilibrium page, and that's where the debate should belong.

What was particularly outrageous, I have to say, was the statement that Gould's "presentation of science is consistently misleading" and other statements in that vein. This viewpoint is quite out of step with the attitudes and opinions of Gould's colleagues. Gould was well respected. He taught at Harvard his entire carrier as was a member of almost every prestigious society and organization a person of his technical expertise could belong. I honestly don't think he was that charming. This ad hominem tactic is ugly, and is getting quite tired. Miguel Chavez 11:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The summary of Gould's contributions in the header should include a brief mention of his controversiality.
Maynard Smith did not view Gould's work kindly: "the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with."[4] Tooby and Cosmides agree, stating "nearly every major evolutionary biologist of our era has weighed in in a vain attempt to correct the tangle of confusions that the higher profile Gould has inundated the intellectual world with. . . his reputation as a credible and balanced authority about evolutionary biology is non-existent among those who are in a professional position to know."
Even Stephen Rose notes (with natural spin) in his biography of Gould the controversiality of punctuated equilibrium among "many" scientists: "But punctuated equilibrium made many traditional evolutionists unhappy too; they saw it as evidence of Gould's alleged Marxism - revolution rather than evolution."[5] --Nectar 22:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Nec, I agree that it belongs in the article. Feel free to insert it. Alienus 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we should be fair to all sides—within reason however. Others have added some alterations, and I have included some of my own. This article however needs more contributors and more work. But regarding Steve Rose, my rule of thumb is if you read "many" read "large minority." If the author thought "most" he would of used that word. Miguel Chavez 2:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to wonder how much of this debate is perhaps centred around individual responses to Gould's politics rather than his actual work. Healthy scepticism and debate (and sometimes violent disagreement) is absolutely normal in science. I'm not certain that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is or ever has been lionised amongst members of the geological community- but I think few of Gould's peers would contest that he is certainly amongst the pre-eminent palaeontologists of the modern age, and an absolutely first-rate scholar. I can't speak for the specific examples (Maynard Smith etc), but many neontologists crticise PE on the same grounds that they dismiss palaeontology generally- the perceived inadequacy of the fossil record to discern evolutionary patterns. The opinion of palaeontologists is equally if not more important here than the opinion of biologists; currently, the only reference to another palaeontologist I can see is SC-M, who was (latterly at least) not predisposed towards Gould at all. For my own part, I can only say that it would not be difficult to come away from this article with the impression that SJG was widely regarded as some kind of quack- that is emphatically not the case. A bit more positive input may be required in order to shift the balance back. Badgerpatrol 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The statements from Tooby and Cosmides, Maynard Smith, Ersnt Mayr, etc, seem to be saying exactly that he is an unreliable scholar. The potential distinction between his reputation among paleontologists and among evolutionary biologists is interesting, but it may also be able to be said that the work for which he's famous is not directly within paleontology.--Nectar 01:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The work for which he's most famous (among scientists, ie Punctuated Equilibrium) is ENTIRELY within palaeontology. The whole point of the PE theory is that is a contribution that can only be made by study of the fossil record. Palaeobiology and biology are two distinct disciplines, albeit with considerable overlap- I was surprised to see the major section on Gould's work labelled 'Gould as a biologist'- I very much doubt if he would ever describe himself as a biologist, and nor frankly would anyone else. Badgerpatrol 12:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's safe to say that there's a huge gap between how he's regarded within his own field and by the public vs. the view taken by hard-core evolutionary biologists. In any case, it's our job to report this, not editorialize or suppress. Alienus 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Ernst Mayr quote. I read Mayr's original paper and he is not referencing Gould. Wife and husband Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, in criticizing Gould's scholarship, are quoting Mayr out of context. As for Maynard Smith, there is much truth in the fact that this is a radical change of opinion. Miguel Chavez 2:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Their reference is to a book, not a paper; are you sure this is the same work? Cosmides and Tooby also include Mayr in their list of those who have "weighed in . . . to correct the tangle of confusions that the higher profile Gould has inundated the intellectual world with."
Also, do we have a good example of critics of Gould being accused of misrepresenting his views?--Nectar
Very sure. The book is a collection of mostly published articles and essays. Please read the chapter if you don't believe me. Mayr's criticisms of Gould have always been balanced and constructive. Mayr's name does not belong among those who view Gould as some sort of quack or pariah. I will try to include more references as soon as I can. Best, Miguel Chavez 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted as a GA

Delisted as a GA; article in its present form lacks balance and neutrality; excessive emphasis is placed on public controversy rather than scientific work; some material and quotes appear to be selectively portrayed. Happy to discuss and to contribute until the article may perhaps regain GA or even FA status in the future. All the best, Badgerpatrol 13:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is that Gould is put forward in wikipedia articles as an expert on intelligence when he most certainly was not. This appears to be an 'across the board' problem in wikipedia articles where Gould is concerned.

I think that's right mostly. Gould, in his work, didn't really focus on the intelligence concept. I appears, to me, that he used specific incidences as representative and argued from there.


The section on Mismeasure of Man is a mess, it doesn't even state what Gould's conclusions were much less explain his arguments for them, but goes straight into attacks. The reference to the APA here is nonsense, their paper seems generally very consistent with Gould's position, and certainly is not an attack on it even implicitly - Gould's book isn't even mentioned though one of his Science papers is. Given that there is a separate article on this book that repeats these criticisms (similarly in POV manner), I suggest simply deleting the section, unless it essentially makes clear what Gould was saying and the influence that this book has had.Gleng 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

the length of the MoM section is now about proportionate, in my view. I had never heard of this controversy until I read this page, and I am fairly familiar with SJG's career. From my reading it seems like you might be in a better position to judge however! The structure of the page could do with a bit of fiddling- ie personal life shouldn't be at the bottom. I'll have a look at it myself later hopefully. Badgerpatrol 09:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I have only recently seen this article but it seems unbalanced. I'm not sure at all about the ethics of using quotes from these sources in this way - Gould relished debate, gave as good as he got, and always argued that a fruitful error is more productive than a bland and trivial truth. This seems petty and spiteful to me, doesn'tt display Gould's ideas, and defines him by generally petty criticisms Gleng 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?? Copyright??

The notes contain rather long extensive quotes - when editing them I hadn't realised that they were direct quotes. I think that these are so extensive that they are likely to be in breach of copyright - ??? Gleng 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

NP. I don't think the length should be an issue, given that the quotes are accompanied by a cite, and the length avoids the 'out of context!' argument. Noisy | Talk 19:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright is law not style. Guidance given by publishers usually is strictly related to length - i.e. brief quotes with citation are OK, long extracts are a breach, unless permission is obtained. In my journals these would be copy vio without permission from copyright holder, no question. My query is about the status of the extract - if they are not copyright protected its OK, but I doubt that they are free use.Gleng 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright, at least in the US, is governed by "fair use."
and I'd like to add that the "fair use" concept is not solely "related to length." I add this because I think that's the impression given by one of the posts above. A quote's "length" as a determinate is not my understanding of US copyright law.

[edit] Mchavez changes

I had to revert them because of multiple issues. A key one is that too much material was cut, including mention of Tooby and Cosmides in the article proper. There were also some weird additions, such as the term "evolutionists". I think Mchavez should try to make some of the same changes again, only a bit at a time so as to get feedback. Al 06:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think your reversal of my edits were very fair. First, I am not fond of Tooby and Cosmides' opinion of other people's opinions. They—an anthropologist and psychologist respectively—are entitled to theirs, but I think they are devastatingly incorrect in their analysis of Gould's place within the community of evolutionary biologists. This is a factual issue. Their inclusion of Ernst Mayr and George C. Williams I know are incorrect. Mayr has always taken Gould seriously and has written more about Gould's work than any other biologist I know. Always respectfully and analytically. George C. Williams in Natural Selection speaks only positively about Gould and his contributions. Williams obviously respects Gould, as his book makes clear. Richard Dawkins, when critical, attacks the publicity, and so-called "hype," of punctuated equilibrium rather than the credibility of its author, or the substance and facts supporting the theory. Dawkins main quarrel with Gould has always been Gould's support of group selection, species selection, and clade and species turnover. Although he has given way—more recently, I might add—on individual selection. E. O. Wilson's opinion is more mixed, often feeling that Gould's attack against his views on sociobiology were more political than scientific. Though Wilson generally approves of Gould as a scientist, in particular of his work in Otogeny and Phylogeny. It surprises me that Tooby and Cosmides include Robert Trivers. Gould has been extraordinarily suportive of Trivers theories of kin selection and altruism. Glowingly. When Trivers speaks of Gould (rare, as it is to me) it seems as though they have a friendly rivalry. Jerry Coyne is inclluded as well, but he is a noted critic of evolutionary psychology. And Tooby and Cosmides know this. They have responded to his criticisms a number of times. In reviewing Randy Thornhill's (another one of Gould's critics, listed by Tooby and Cosmides) controversial book A Natural History of Rape, Coyne writes:
There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. . . . Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize.
Every time I read that excerpt by Tooby and Cosmides I can do nothing but shake my head. If you wish, you can re-include it. I don't want to censor an opinion, however misinformed it may be (my opinion), but you have to make efforts to make it fit well within the text. I removed it because it sounded awkward, and because the same quotation was found in one of the endnotes. As for the word "evolutionists," I don't think it sounds "weird" at all. My opinion again. From the books I've read "evolutionist" is far more common than "evolutionary biologist." The latter, certainly, may be the correct technical term, but it is used far more by outsiders than professionals. That's what I've always thought... In any case, I changed it back to the way it was before. Best, Miguel Chavez 08:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree fully with the above. I found the Tooby/Cosmides quote intemperate and unhelpful.Gleng 09:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes Section

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I added a quote section. I would like all to review it. It may seem controversial, but is it not an accurate portrayal of what he was saying in those passages? MEGOP 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the quotes because they were guilty of quote-mining. In specific, someone reading this quotes without being familiar with the totality of Gould's writing would be sure to get a mistaken impression of his views on evolution. For all the apparent controversy, Gould's view of evolution differed from that of mainstream biologists only in matters of emphasis and detail. In specific, he emphasized the "burstiness" and "contingency", while failing to understand certain details relevant to adaptation. In short, while he wasn't much of an evolutionary biologist, he still supported evolution (as he understood it). For these reasons, I removed the quotes. Thank you for understanding. Al 00:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting viewpoint. Can you give us an indication of your credentials to judge Gould's work? Or is this just your opinion as a layperson? Badgerpatrol 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia respects credentials? Why wasn't I informed?! Seriously, just read the whole article, and you'll see that my statements are already well-supported. Al 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Credentials, or not, he's right. And the "Famous Quotes" also suffer from the fact that they're not famous. - Nunh-huh 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've got no problem with the quotes, whether in or out—I do wonder however whether Gould could be fairly catagorised as 'not much of an evolutionary biologist'. I hope this kind of blatant POV doesn't find its way into the article proper. Badgerpatrol 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It's in the article, properly attributed to evolutionary biologists who are singularly unimpressed with Gould's grasp of evolution. Al 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah—so what you are saying is that disagreements between scientists over issues of theory should be taken as an indication of respective ability and scholarship? I think there are a few articles regarding scientists whose ideas were not universally welcomed or accepted by other scholars in their fields. We may have a lot of revising to do. Badgerpatrol 00:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify. These respected evolutionary biologists don't merely disagree with Gould, they argue that he has a weak grasp of the issues. It's quite possible to disagree with someone while respecting their scientific competence, but this is simply not the case here. Gould was a paleontologist who played at evolutionary biology. He came up with a minor, unimportant wrinkle to add to neo-Darwinism, but was arrogant enough to claim that it was a huge big deal. The one thing Gould really had going for him was his writing ability, which made him quite popular with unsuspecting laymen who didn't realize how clueless he was about evolution. Al 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Let's work together to ensure that this article reflects a fairly balanced mixture of plaudits and crticism. All the best, Badgerpatrol 00:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it already does. We're just editorializing here, not discussing changes. Al 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I often find myself "respectfully disagreeing" with people. After all, some issues are very complex, and I can understand how reasonable people can come to different conclusions. But sometimes you run across someone who is just so damn confident in the most absurd of opinions. And this is what I see here with Alianus (as well as many evolutionary psychologists, and also by Maynard Smith in what I consider a weak moment). Alianus, I would love to discuss just how Gould is so confused on the theoretical issues of evolutionary theory. Do you know why, or have you learned all your biology from Dennet? Let me say this, I don't very often disagree with Gould. And if he doesn't convince me on a certain point, I nevertheless find his analysis always insightful. When I do disagree I never find his understanding of the issues unreasonable, and certainly never confused. This I cannot say about his critics. I cannot tell you how many times I have seriously wondered if they had even read his papers (carefully, or if at all). Now I respect Danial Dennet. I like Dennet, and he's obviously a clever man. But his grasp of evolutionary theory is hardly deep. And his interest in the subject is very partisan. This can be said about a fair number of Gould's critics as well, but not all. The attitude that Gould was "so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with" is among the STUPIDEST things I have ever read. On par with so-called "scientific creationism." And I don't think I'm being shrill here. Simply look at the literature, and I mean the technical stuff. Many persons have spent their precious academic time analyzing and testing the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould. This includes the best minds of evolutionary theory (including Ernst Mayr, and even John Maynard Smith). Gould did not get into Harvard, or the National Academies because of his literary wit, or charming nature. For the sake of personal honesty, he deserves some [expletive] respect. In any case, I look forward to an interesting, and possibly exciting debate. Best Miguel Chavez 08:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Dennett, for all his knowledge of biology, is a philosopher. However, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and has been quite critical of Gould. The problem is that Gould is a paleontologist, which gives him a twisted view of evolution. In particular, it downplays adaptation and emphasizes the role of chance, which is precisely the view that Gould puts forth. Likewise, for whatever reason, Gould has committed himself to high-level selection, which is something that is very hard to defend. These are just two areas where Gould is out of touch with mainstream biology. The deeper problems come from his political actions, and here I am not talking about communism. Consider his nonoverlapping magesteria, which is a rearguard action in which he cedes all of ethics to religion in the doomed hope that religion will cede biology in return. This is bad politics and has played right into the hands of Creationists. Al 16:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm impressed. And I will even agree with you here. Gould, because he was a paleontologist, emphasized structural morphology over functional anatomy. This is true. Clearly, anyone dealing with fossils cannot appreciate the intricate adaptations like an ethologist can, such as Dawkins. But this dilemma goes both ways. Dawkins—somewhat understandably—is far too preoccupied with adaptation, because that's all he sees (and all he cares about). Nor does Dawkins appreciate laws of growth, governed by both developmental and genetic constraint. Now this is an important, even essential factor in understanding how evolution works. You cannot claim to understand evolution if you cannot appreciate constraint. It is as important as understanding the nature of variation. For obvious reasons. And Dawkins and Dennet don't seem to care, or prefer to imagine it doesn't exist. That being said, it is one thing to say Gould didn't appreciate adaptation (fine), but it is quite another to say he didn't understand it.
To Gould's advantage, as a paleontologist, he was able to see how evolution shaped larger trends in the long haul. Most importantly, the phenomenology of stasis, with all its interesting implications for understanding homeostasis, adaptation, and higher level sorting patterns.
As for hierarchical selection, I would say it is hard to define at times, but it is even harder to deny. From my reading this seems to be the direction everyone is going (or at least giving lip service to). The problem is the logic of the theory clearly flows from that data, but it is stubbornly difficult (but clearly not impossible) to test. And it is being tested. I suppose I should make a tally, pro and con, to see where most evolutionists stand on the matter. But Gould's adoption of this view is hardly inexplicable. At this moment Mayr and Jablonski come to mind. We'll tackle the religious stuff later. Best, Miguel Chavez 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any biologist denies that natural selection must occur from among physically possible alternatives. In other words, there are indeed architectural and developmental constraints, which is why (for example) it's quite unlikely for a single-horned equine to evolve naturally. However, Dawkins and Dennett focus on adaptation because they consider it to be the more important aspect of evolution, being the part that apparently mimics conscious design. So, to an extent, their disagreement with Gould is more a matter of emphasis than content.
In the same way, the Darwinian gradualism that Gould's punctuated equilibrium seeks to amend is not being overthrown and replaced with genuine saltationism, just alternating periods of slower or quicker -- but still gradual and continuous -- change. Here, Gould so strongly emphasized his differences from traditional evolution that he has unwittingly mislead people into thinking that he has replaced, rather than supplemented, it. In fact, a number of Creationists have latched onto this as evidence that evolution is false or that biologists can't get their act together and are providing a united front to hide their internal incoherence.
As for higher level selection, Dawkins levels some rather strong arguments against it in The Selfish Gene. So far, the only way group selection has been shown to exist is in a way that is a direct extension of genetic selection, not opposed to it.
The overall pattern is that Gould has a tendency to overstate the distinctiveness of his approach and inflate differences, in a way that does not serve the truth. Al 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Some would suggest instead that the overall pattern is that non-scientists misinterpret his work and inflate differences in a way that does not serve the truth. I hardly see how it can be Gould's fault that creationists misuse his work in order to support their position. Of course there is debate in science, and of course scientists disagree. The reason why the creationist micro-minority interpret these as being weaknesses is because they have little or no understanding of the field or how science works. To state again; Gould may or may not have been wrong, but being wrong is not the same as being a bad scientist. Badgerpatrol 23:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course few biologists deny that constraint plays a role in channeling evolution. That was never Gould and Lewontin's point. The real issue was of emphasis and degree (p. 585). When reading Dawkins (but also the evolutionary psychologists) it is rare to find constraint mentioned, utilized, or considered at all. And if constraint is as powerful as we generally concede it is, then this poses a problem. Yes (when pressed) they cite G. C. Williams, and even Charles Darwin, on the limits of adaptation. But if constraint plays no role in your day-to-day biology, then you might as well say it doesn't exist. It's all just lip-service. That's why their 1979 paper is frequently praised. Even though it had all been said before, it really hadn't been said so forcefully and brilliantly. Ernst Mayr wrote a paper called "How to carry out the adaptationist program?" which perfectly summarizes the pros and cons of both approaches. Elliot Sober's The Nature of Selection is also a classic. That being said, Gould had been among the largest and most influential thinkers in the study of adaptation. He hardly had a "weak grasp of the issues," as you described. If people misinterpreted Gould, or misperceived that he had inflated the importance of his ideas, then that is the fault of the reader (and the press), not Mr. Gould. My personal criticism of Gould was that his skepticism, though welcome, was unnecessarily too strong. In any case, I would love to see the phantom quotation where Gould claims he has discovered something revolutionary. I can easily show you evidence to the contrary. As for group selection, the hierarchical viewpoint shares only a superficial resemblance, and serves more as a passive (but powerfully discriminating) filter. Group selection is still in, but plays a negligible role. All the best, Miguel Chavez 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, for the benefit of MEGOP and others, that there is a place for Gould quotations (and quotations generally); it's called Wikiquote. Quotations are appropriate in an encyclopedia article only to the extent that they support the expository text. As the primary editor of the Wikiquote collection of SJG quotations, I undertook a reading project last year to read all of Gould's books (and actually finished all but three; see the talk page there for more details) with an eye for how best to illustrate the philosophy and scientific views of SJG in his own words, while remaining within the bounds of law and good taste. Other editors have added numerous quotations about Gould from friends and critics alike. We would always like to have more, in both categories, provided they can be reliably sourced and are of an appropriate length. 121a0012 02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before on this talk page, I believe Al's statement four paragraphs up that Gould "was arrogant enough to claim that [punctuated equilibrium] was a huge big deal" grossly misrepresents Gould's actual position, as set out in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory and elsewhere. I would refer those interested to chapter 9 of the Structure for his final (and presumably, definitive) statement on the matter. Claims about what Gould said should be backed up by actual, verifiable quotations; otherwise they are no more than hearsay. 121a0012 02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As it turns out, I was editorializing, not writing an article. If I were doing the latter, I'd offer citations and such. Since I'm not, I'll just direct you to the Gould chapter in Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett, for a taste of what's wrong with Gould. Al 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any unbiased sources? Or at least less biased? (The chapter in the Structure I referred to above runs through a litany of Dennett's misstatements [per Gould] in that book about Gould and punctuated equilibrium.) I'd love to see some sort of literature review by someone with no obvious axe to grind—but axes seem to be in plentiful supply among students of evolutionary theory. (That would also be a nice thing to have in the Mismeasure of Man context—the arguments between Gould and Eysenck et al seem to be very similar in form to the arguments between Gould and Dennett, right down to the point where they dissolve into argumentum ad hominem.) That's one of the reasons why reference to the primary sources is so crucial in resolving these "did not!", "did too!" sorts of arguments. If we illustrate this article with a quotation from a detractor saying "Gould says X about Y" when Gould does not in fact say X (or did say X but was talking about Z and not Y), then readers ought to know that, just as they should know if a quotation from Gould misrepresents what someone else has said. (By preference we should not use such quotations at all, except to illustrate the controversies Gould has been involved in.) 121a0012 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider Dennett biased on this matter. Al 06:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a curious conversation, in many respects. The article is heading in a highly POV direction, again dominated by the fact that Gould's ideas are scarecely explained at all, merely defined, mainly by criticisms, often intemperate criticisms from those work was attacked strongly by Gould. A few things might be said. First, that of most of the names mentioned, Gould is unique in being an empirical scientist—we should remember that "evolutionary biology" is in the end largely theory except for the empirical evidence of palaeontology, and in this field Gould was very highly regarded, and I don't think I've seen anything to the contrary.

Dennett on the other hand is not a scientist but a philosopher, highly regarded perhaps by philosophers (although his book contains one glorious logical idiocy); I don't think a popular book written by a philosopher is evidence of much more than opinion, if anyone regards this as heavyweight then all I can say is that I don't think this is a universal view. As for bias, Dennett's attribution of Gould's scientific views to his supposed political inclinations would be regarded on WP as an unacceptable personal attack, and it is scarcely surprising that Gould's response was so devastatingly acid. This article is seriously remiss in not carefully explaining exactly what it was that Gould argued so forcefully, the consequences of which aroused such controversy. If Gould's ideas had not been radical and dangerous, they would scarcely have attracted such ire. But they were. Gleng 01:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As most evolution has occured in the past, evolutionary biology certainly has a tendency to speak more about how things got here than how they are today. Having said that, evolution is not a theory about the past, but rather the explanation for ongoing changes. Evolutionary biology, for example, tells us what actions would serve to avoid encouraging antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Dennett is, as you say, a philosopher and not a scientist. However, he is quite unusual among philosophers in his respect for and extensive knowledge of science, as well as his close relationship with renowned scientists such as Dawkins and Pinker. Moreover, Dennett is an expert on evolution, particularly from the perspective of its overall philosophical implications in addition to its biological ones. Politically, he is moderately leftist, but not Marxist. In short, I would say he is uniquely qualified to debate Gould, and if you read the book I recommended, you'll see that, to be quite frank, he tore Gould a new asshole.
Gould's ideas were not radical or dangerous, but Gould made them out to be so in an attempt to turn a minor wrinkle on evolution into a big hairy deal, thus boosting his fame. To the extent that his ideas were major, they were wrong. To the extent that they were right, they were minor.
Having said all this, I'm all for a clear explanation of Gould's ideas. But let's not give them more value than the scientific and philosophical community does. It would be a violation of undue weight. Al 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As always, the article should reflect a fair and balanced view of Gould and his ideas. A fair and balanced view is going to contain a lot more positives than negatives. Like all scientists with anything worthwhile to say, Gould had both supporters and detractors. All I can say regarding the scientific community's reception of Gould's ideas is that, as one would expect, not everyone agrees. But as a stimulatory source of debate and research, I can think of few scientists in the field whose ideas can be said to have had had such an impact, at least since the synthesis anyway. It is one thing saying that a person's ideas are wrong or that one does not agree with them; it is quite another to say that they are ill-thought out or unscholarly. Very few scientists in the field subscribe to the latter view with regard to Gould's work. Badgerpatrol 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree fully. Alienus correctly describes the attitudes of some biologists and philosophers, especially those associated with EP about which Gould, along with many others was acidic in his criticism (see "Alas Poor Darwin" for a collection of essays from a variety of biologists and philopsophers on the inadequacies of EP). Gould particularly attached the ideas and foundations of EP and rarely stooped to criticism of individuals except under extreme provocation. However I do not think that this view of Gould is a common one amongst biologists generally, it's certainly not mine or any of my colleagues that I know; if it's common it's certainly not a dominant view. Although Dawkins is held in huge respect, his views are probably subject to even more specific criticism over detail from molecular biologists than Gould's, and on balance, Gould's are probably more in tune with developmental molecular biology. Biology is a broad church; there are many shades of opinion within it, and those shades reflect the different importance that different biologists attach to different areas of evidence. And as for Dennett's book, I certainly would never comment on anything I hadn't read myself. The view I expressed above is mine.
Opinions are transient and arguable things, and the opinions that people hold change over time and their meaning depends so much upon context. Keep to the ideas and criticisms of the ideas; the criticisms themselves should be explained, not left as mere summary judgements of questionable authorities—and all authorities are questionable here. I dislike the EP quote here not because it's a crticism of Gould's ideas but because it's not, it's merely a nasty and vacuous piece of bitching that I hope in a gentler mmment they'd be ashamed of. I feel embarrassed for the authors that it's repeated here.Gleng 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. If you think the quotes and paraphrases are unrepresentatively critical of Gould, a good way of handling it would be to add some quotes that are more positive, if you can dig them up. Al 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A proposed restatement

In response to Gleng's comment above, I thought a bit about which scientific points need to be covered. Taking the Structure to be definitive, I've worked out the following précis of what we might call "Gouldian evolutionary theory":

  1. Darwinian natural selection, defined as the differential survival of those entities better or worse suited to their environments, operates at multiple levels in the biological hierarchy: at the lowest level among genes all the way up to clades. Each level of this hierarchy constitutes an evolutionary individual when considered at its appropriate time scale. There are evolutionary pressures not only among individuals at the same level of the hierarchy, but also between levels; for example, success of a cell line in a complex organism may come at the ultimate cost of the organism's life (viz., cancer).
  2. The story of macroevolution is the story of the birth and extinction of entire species, and can best be understood as the result of species selection.
  3. The fossil record is not hopelessly incomplete, as Darwin and many neo-Darwinists suggest, but is in fact a true record of the course of evolution in geological time.
  4. The dominant mode of macroevolution is characterized by species arriving with geological rapidity (that is, within a single bedding plane) and changing very little for a long period until their ultimate extinction. This is not an illusion caused by an inadequate fossil record (see above), nor is it an artifact of how paleontologists define species.
  5. This mode of change is in fact a simple consequence of known microevolutionary mechanism when correctly extrapolated over geological time scales.
  6. Not every feature of a biological system is adaptive; no organism is perfectly adapted. No matter how adaptive some conceivable feature may be, it may not be reachable for a variety of reasons. These constraints include the purely physical (birds would have an easier time flying if they could generate anti-gravity fields—but no such fields exist); the physico-mathematical (e.g., the square-cube law and other constraints on the sizes and shapes of organisms); the developmental (mammalian fetuses must be small enough to pass through their mothers' pelvises at birth); and the historical.
  7. Historical constraint is the most significant form of constraint, and can result in a life history that is easy to misread as directional. The raw material of evolution is random variation; even assuming such variations are equiprobable, this process can only generate a finite number of varieties in a finite time. As a result, many adaptations which are not otherwise precluded simply do not appear because insufficient time has elapsed; objectively inferior adaptations may become entrenched simply because they were easier to reach by random variation from the base state, and once the selective pressure is reduced, so is the impetus for change ("the good is the enemy of the best"). This also explains the deep homologies observed in molecular biology and genome studies.
  8. Not every feature of a biologial system is adaptive; some features are mere consequences of other features (which themselves may be adaptive or may be no more than historical baggage). (The canonical example is male nipples, explained as a consequence of the existence of female nipples, combined with the lack of any selective pressure which would cause them to be suppressed in the development of the male anatomy.) Sometimes, features which originally evolved for non-adaptive reasons may later be co-opted when the environment changes and that feature proves beneficial; the loci of selection and adaptation do not always coincide. (Such cases are referred to as exaptation.)

Points (1) and (2) come from chapter 8, "Species as Individuals in the Hierarchical Theory of Selection". Points (3), (4), and (5) come from chapter 9, "Punctuated Equilibrium and the Validation of Macroevolutionary Theory". The remaining points are a fusion of chapter 10, "The Integration of Constraint and Adaptation (Structure and Function) in Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Historical Constraints and the Evolution of Development", and chapter 11, "The Integration of Constraint and Adaptation (Structure and Function) in Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Structural Constraints, Spandrels, and the Centrality of Exaptation in Macroevolution".

Now, the question then comes, how can we illustrate these points, which it takes Gould 700 pages to set out, in an appropriately encyclopedic way for a general audience. It's reasonable to look in Gould's essays for his own attempts at explaining his work to others; the trouble is that he generally did not toot his own horn in his essays (preferring, in the main, to confine himself to the history and philosophy of science). However, a few statements illustrating the general principles are readily available (all of these come from the Wikiquote collection):

For punctuated equilibrium:

I want to argue that the “sudden” appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it. ("Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution", Ever Since Darwin, 1977, p. 61)
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.” ("The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 182)
The theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed by Niles Eldredge and myself, is not, as so often misunderstood, a radical claim for truly sudden change, but a recognition that ordinary processes of speciation, properly conceived as glacially slow by the standard of our own life-span, do not resolve into geological time as long sequences of insensibly graded intermediates (the traditional, or gradualistic, view), but as geologically “sudden” origins at single bedding planes. (Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, 1987, pp. 2–3)

PE and species selection:

Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates. We live in a world of structure and legitimate distinction. Species are the units of nature's morphology. ("A Quahog is a Quahog", The Panda's Thumb, p. 213)

On constraint:

Organisms [...] are directed and limited by their past. They must remain imperfect in their form and function, and to that extent unpredictable since they are not optimal machines. ("Quick Lives and Quirky Changes", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 65)
A complete theory of evolution must acknowledge a balance between “external” forces of environment imposing selection for local adaptation and “internal” forces representing constraints of inheritance and development. ("A Hearing for Vavilov", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 144)
We do not inhabit a perfected world where natural selection ruthlessly scrutinizes all organic structures and then molds them for optimal utility. Organisms inherit a body form and a style of embryonic development; these impose constraints upon future change and adaptation. In many cases, evolutionary pathways reflect inherited patterns more than current environmental demands. These inheritances constrain, but they also provide opportunity. ("Hyena Myths and Realities", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 156)
When Bonner writes that “natural selection for optimal feeding is then presumed to be the cause of non-motility in all forms,” I can't help suspecting that some plants might do even better if they could walk from shade to sun—but the inherited constraints of design never permitted a trial of this intriguing option. ("The Ghost of Protagoras", An Urchin in the Storm, 1987, p. 67)

On the power of selection relative to other forces:

Our world is not an optimal place, fine tuned by omnipotent forces of selection. It is a quirky mass of imperfections, working well enough (often admirably); a jury-rigged set of adaptations built of curious parts made available by past histories in different contexts. ("Only His Wings Remained", The Flamingo's Smile, 1985, p. 54)

I can't help but include a few quotations on historiography:

When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents—a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless, completely disappeared from large sectors of the American experience. ("Non-Overlapping Magisteria", Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, 1998, p. 273
I can promise that, although I have frequently advanced wrong, or even stupid, arguments (in the light of later discoveries), at least I have never been lazy, and have never betrayed your trust by cutting corners or relying on superficial secondary sources. I have always based these essays upon original works in their original languages. (Preface, I Have Landed, 2002, p. 6)

[I moved the NOMA quotation that was here into the article. 121a0012 05:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)]

121a0012 05:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent summary of what's needed; I'll help out as time allowsGleng 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference style

Harvard references and footnotes don't really go together. We should pick a style and stick with it. (I'm not fond of the Harvard style and would as soon use proper footnotes, but I believe that Harvard is standard in many of the fields SJG himself worked in.) I would also suggest that primary-source quotations do not belong in footnotes; if they are that extraneous, they should be trimmed entirely. 121a0012 05:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While I like the Harvard style for my books, end notes are less obtrusive for digitized texts. The synthesis of styles is the result of an evolved article. I've seen it used in print, but its strengths definitely lie in texts which are heavily footnoted. This certainly isn't the case here. As for primary-sourced quotations in end notes, I certainly don't have a problem with this. This is common, and is an effective literary style. Sometimes you have to say something important, or interesting, or marginally relevant, but it just doesn't seem to flow right within the text. My .02 ¢ — Miguel Chavez 07:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation analysis

There is a perception, alluded to in the discussion above, that while Gould was a remarkably adept and influential writer of popular science, his work as a scientist per se was less notable and much less influential/respected. This is not a view universally held, as a historian of science his contributions are widely described as being outstanding, and he is said to have been very well respected in his own field of paleao biology. However I have tried to establish how influential his science was by establishing how often his scientific papers (not his popular works) have been cited in the scientific literature, through the ISI databases. For comparison, Richard Dawkins' most highly cited scientific paper has 100 citations, Ernst Mayr's has 173, CG Williams' has 253 and D Tutyama's has 394. Gould's most highly cited paper (in Proc R Soc 1979) has 1,613 citations, and the next eight have 863, 609, 291, 169, 138, 121, 121, and 109 citations - the last of these published in 1974 is on antler size. I do not think that any claim that Gould was not highly influential as a scientist is objectively sustainable. His citation record is exceptional by any standards.Gleng 09:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The influence of Gould's scientific papers is definitely top tier. His most cited paper (1613) according to ISI is "Spandrels of San-Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm." Another issue that's been raised that this doesn't necessarily respond to, though, is the claims along the lines of Maynard Smith's that Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory." Anyway, it seems we're looking at somewhat different results at ISI, as I see more citations for, e.g., Gould's other papers (2nd most cited is 966 for "Allometry and Size in Ontogeny and Phylogeny"), and Dawkin's most cited paper has 413. WD Hamilton seems to set the record in the area with 3770, but the comparatively low citation rate for Mayr would seem to underscore that this is, in the end, a limited measurement.--Nectar 11:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree; citation analysis is limited; my point was simply to provide verifiable evidence for the impact that Gould's scientific work has had. Obviously there are controversial elements in his views, and whether he has given biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory may or may not be the point; was he trying to give non-biologists a picture of the state of evolutionary theory or trying to explain his own views? In which case the criticism might be correct, but iss less than stinging. Gleng 12:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's a matter of interpretation. First, it appears that the criticism of Gould's scholarly works is mostly limited to his interactions with evolutionary genetics/biology. In paleo and anthro he appears to have been well received. So as a geneticst, my view of Gould is largely negative (in line with Maynard Smith's). A secondary point--the citation analysis would need to include books, where a lot of the action in this field has taken place. For example, Mayr's Animal Species and Evolution has 4000+ citations. --Rikurzhen 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Gould is clearly among the most cited names in evolutionary biology, and he is the third most cited biologist in his professions flagship journal Paleobiology, behind only to Charles Darwin and G. G. Simpson. However citation analysis alone can be very misleading, but I do think it is helpful in many ways. Despite these problems, his numbers are quite impressive. David B. Wake, who was a fellow NAS member and expert on speciation, wrote a very compelling paper on this subject, titled "On the scientific legacy of Stephen Jay Gould". It seems the more I investigate this issue, the more I worry that I have conceded far too much to Gould's very vocal critics. — Miguel Chavez 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced controversies stuff in the introduction

SJG's article's introduction should include infomation about his controversies because the article has a section devoted to its subject's controversies. Thus it is relevent enough to be included in the article's introduction. The same cannot be said for Dawkins' article. If anyone feels that this is not fair and balanced enough then one should add controversial infomation into other articles instead of removing controversial infomation from this article.

Also, the citation for Gould acussing his critics of misrepresenting his work would do better if it is more specific. Maybe like the citation for "critics went further and accused Gould of misrepresenting their work". Oskart 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Oskart. The controversies surrounding Gould's work are simply not representative enough to be included in the general introduction. Contrary to the opinions of some wikipedians, Gould was well respected, and the controversies surrounding his work, when taken in totality, are too subtle and peripheral—mostly on issues related to one's preferred emphasis of adaptation—to be displayed so prominently (and worded so strongly). By making these disagreements into something more than they are, we risk suggesting that Gould was some sort of scientific pariah, which simply wasn't the case. (And I've heard numerous complaints on this issue.) No other scientist listed in wikipedia (and I have looked) is being subjected to the kind of negative treatment that is being displayed here. Richard Dawkins for example has a glowing introduction, even though he was not as respected as Gould, and is considerably more controversial. I think it's obvious that too much politics has crept in here and it's time we kept it in check. I would not even subject Richard to such polemical perversions. It is unfair to either gentleman. Best, Miguel Chavez 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree wholly with the above. Gould was influential across many areas of biological science for his academic work alone; influence includes provoking reactions, and in many ways the vocal reactions are a tribute to his influence and the wide respect he was accorded. Of his major disputes, the dispute over sociobiology is one where I think his was the majority scientific viewpoint; the controversy over IQ is an interesting case, and I suspect that among biologists generally the vote goes quite strongly with Gould; his case had flaws, but overall it was powerful, for all that it still has its proponents, IQ is now regarded as a deeply and fundamentally flawed concept by many. He wrote so well that many didn't credit the possibility that he could also be, in his own right, a major scientist and also a major historian of science.Gleng 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversies surrounding Gould's work are representative enough to be included in the introduction because the article has a "controversies" section.
As for respect, a respectable man is not necessarily a man of less controversies.
As for politics, saying that he is not (very) controversial is as political as saying that he is controversial.
As for Dawkins being considerably more controversial, make that point in the relevant article.
As for sociobiology/IQ, the controversies stated in the introduction made no mention of IQ. Other than that, how it is regarded depends upon the circle of works one reads from. For example: the editorial Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence was supported by 52 signatories. Those that support IQ are mostly experts and specialists while those who vilify it are mostly the public and the media.
Oskart 22:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't follow your argument. Just because there is a section on "controversies" doesn't necessarily mean that it should be reflected in the introduction. There is also a section on Gould's personal life, as well as The Mismeasure of Man. Furthermore, no one is saying he wasn't controversial. Only that the paragraph on controversies should be placed (properly) in the controversies section. The introduction should be a concise snapshot of who the person was, and what he did. I was afraid that by focusing too much on the controversies we might give the impression that Gould was more radical than he truly was, and might possibly seed the impression that Gould's ideas were entirely unreasonable. It might surprise you to know that I actually wrote that paragraph you're so insistent on keeping up. I did so to reflect some of the strong sentiments shared by his very vocal critics, but written in a reasonable and tolerant way. However the more I scanned the articles on Wikipedia, the more I realized that Gould had really been singled out as a target, and that many more controversial scientists had much more respectful biographies (and like Dawkins, glowing introductions). The simple fact is this article focuses way too much on the politics of scientific debate, and not enough on the science. Gould touched on a lot of different topics in his scientific career—which, sadly, are not being discussed here. What about Gould's contributions to heterochrony, and evolutionary developmental biology, why is so little said about punctuated equilibrium and its development into elaborating macro level selection, as well as contributing to concepts like paleoecological stasis and species cohesion. What about his contributions to understanding phyletic diversity, adaptation, contingency, structuralism, allometry in growth, and deep homologies within genetic systems? If I had to take a guess, I would bet that the reason this article focuses so much on the controversies is that so much has been written about it in popular print, and that's all some people know. What is clear to me is that this article needs to be more nuanced, and reflect a more real picture of who Gould was, and what he meant to evolutionary theory. All this controversies stuff is bullshit (however entertaining it is to read about). Personally I don't care that much where that paragraph is. But I honestly think it goes better as an introduction to the controversies section, rather than as a closing for the general introduction. I'm up for letting it go for a vote, and to let it be decided by the strength of the arguments. Best, Miguel Chavez 02:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oskart, I also agree that the subject of IQ is somewhat off topic, but I recommend that readers here take the time to read "Mainstream Science on Intelligence."[6] Particularly how "intelligence" (whithout doubt an extremely complex concept) is defined (in conclusion 1), and how it is broken down into almost absurdly reductionist terms (see conclusion 2). But what I found particularly welcome was conclusion 9, which states: "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes" which Gould would surely be sympathetic to. I would also recommend that readers take the trouble to read Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, which is surprisingly a very reasonable thesis, given the extreme controversy surrounding it. Personally, I do think the IQ people are on to something, but I also believe they are less than willing to admit their methodological weaknesses, which run aplenty. Best, Miguel Chavez 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Yes the subject of IQ is tangential; The Mismeasure of Man takes a primarily historical perspective, exposing the pseudoscientific origins of the concept of IQ and its subsequent abuse, and there are plenty of biologists who regard this area of psychology as still deeply flawed. However the issue is not whether some of Gould's opinions were controversial, some clearly were, but about the context of the controversies and Gould's role in them. Gould was a major scientist of considerable impact for his scientific adademic contributions, who garnered an extraordinary collection of honours and accolades from academic institutions in recognition of those; he became the spokesman of a large body of scientific opinion on several controversial issues: creationism, IQ and sociobiology; on each of these issues Gould argued, inter alia, that science was being subverted to pseudoscience and abused for political ends. Because his was a voice of widely accepted authority within academic science, and because he also gained an unparalleled following through his popularisation of science, he became the frequent focus of personal attacks. I'm merely one of many who have cited Gould in the scientific literaure, and who feel that the nature of some of the personal attacks on Gould are shameful, yet their nature is itself a validation of one of Gould's recurrent themes, that scientific opinions always have to be assessed in the context of the times, including the social and political context, and that dispassionate and objective science requires acknowledgement and understanding of our present prejudices and preconceptions. Gould was first and foremost an outstanding scientist and thinker; this gave him the authority that made subsequent controversies so notable. In those controversies, his voice was representative of the views of many others, but in his own science he made significant original contributions. Gleng 09:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I concede defeat for this issue (ie: not IQ) since Mchavez knows more of this than I thought. But do forgive me for not letting myself go without making one clarification. My point about Dawkins' article was to say that if Dawkins was indeed considerably (as oppose to a little) more controversial than Gould, it is inconsistent with the fact that the article about the less controversial person has a controversies section while the reverse is true for the more controversial person, therefore the unfairness lies in Dawkins' article. Knowing that people might misjudge me due to possible misinterpretations keeps me from sleeping at night.

As for IQ, I made no mention of IQ at first because I was afraid that it would sidetrack the debate into talking about IQ instead of the actual subject of the debate, thereby ignoring the topic at hand. But since it did anyway, I should reply.

Gleng, I was not challenging you about the validity of IQ nor sociobiology; I made no critical comment about Gould's stands on those subject; more severely, you hardly said anything in direct relevance to my arguments. My posting of Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence was to show you that there are "many" who supports IQ despite the other "many" whom you said do not. With the added implication that "how it is regarded depends upon the circle of works one reads from". In that spirit of reading from different circles of works, here is a point-by-point analysis of The Mismeasure of Man from a different circle: The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons
--Oskart 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just one more thing: I didn't say anyone said Gould was not controversial. And just in case: I am not saying anyone said that I said it.
--Oskart 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Oskart. We sure wrote quite a bit of words for what ultimately came down to very little change. But in any case, this was fun. But before we finish, I want to address a point you made, which was very good. The reason why I consider Dawkins more controversial than Gould is that Dawkins advances a more unrealistic version of evolution. It is elegant, intuitive, beautiful, and taken seriously by no one. His understanding of speciation, morphological and genetic constraints, macroevolutionary tempos and trends, among a few other things, is very limited. And I hate to say this—since I greatly admire both Dawkins' writings and courage—but he tends to go off on tangents he knows very little about. For instance punctuated equilibrium and philosophy (although I completely agree with him on the last). His gene-centered view of selection has been (generally ignored, but) attacked by philosophers and evolutionists alike. His greatest contribution has been his excellent popular works, as well as his metaphor of the extended phenotype. Gould however contributed much more to paleontology and evolutionary theory, and his ideas are more widely discussed and have spurred vast amounts of serious scientific research (especially with regards to paleontology). The reason Gould has a controversy section, I suppose, is that Gould was further entrenched in controversial subjects (punctuated equilibrium, sociobiology, adaptation, phyletic origin, rapid modes of speciation, etc.) and was quite aggressive about it. Gould also openly engaged his opponents and tried to instigate discussion (and to a large extent, some polarization). This obviously created some backlash, but it also benefited evolutionary theory by attracting attention to areas of theoretical debate, which were largely ignored. Best, Miguel Chavez 07:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oskart; all the points you made were good points for consideration; I wasn't writing to deny that, only to contribute to the discussion so that all sides can see this article from various perspectives on Gould and his work - and especially from the often underappreciated impact that his purely scientific contributions have had. ;)Gleng 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is it okay to wikipedia promote pro-eugenics sites?

One of the links is of a site that promoves strong forms of eugenics and etc. I do not think that it is much more adequate than a link to a nazi criticism on a article about judaism. --Extremophile 16:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Linking to something does not mean Wikipedia is promoting it (Wikipedia does not promote anything). And explain how a link is inadequate without resorting to Reductio ad Hitlerum.--Oskart 01:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Substitute the Hitler analogy which was a bit closer to some article on evolution with a link to a creationist website with the usual BSism made up of tendentious exposition of facts. --Extremophile 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So what does the link have to do with creationists and how does that make the link inadequate? (FYI: "adequate" and "inadequate" does not mean good or bad, it means enough or not enough.) --Oskart 03:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Oskart in this case. The link "Mismeasure of Gould" contains an almost complete survey of Gould's critics, which I have found very useful. It contains excerpts from Dawkins, Ruse, Pinker, Dennet, Alcock, Sterelny as well as Corroll and Rushton. It therefore allows readers to read the criticism directly, rather than second hand. Information is information, regardless of where it comes from. It goes with out saying that Mr. Matt Nuenke, the proprietor and editor of the website, has an agenda (and is a quack of sorts), but thankfully he didn't write anything here. Not really, anyway. It's the intellectual work of other individuals--who are not racist or advocates of eugenics. So although I share your sentiments, I have to vote against. Mchavez 04:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pseudoscience?"

I've noticed over the last few days that one person removed the phrase "and other forms of pseudoscience" and then someone else reverted it saying that the deletion was POV. Maybe there is a way we can come to some acceptable language here on the Talk page without going back and forth with reversions? Although I agree that "creation science" and "intelligent design" actually are pseudoscience, it seems to me that saying so in so many words sounds more POV than not saying so. After all, even without the phrase "and other forms of pseudoscience" it is clear from the passage that Gould considered them to be so. Perhaps the best thing would be to find a quote from Gould himself referring to these branches of "study" and insert it place of the disputed phrase. If he, in fact, called them "pseudoscience," use a quote from him and reference it. Does this sound like a good solution? Does anyone have a quote we can use?

Given the consensus is that "creation science" and "intelligent design" are pseudosciences I read the wording "...and other forms of pseudoscience" not in relation to those but in relation to other subjects which are also addressed earlier (though it doesn't say so in our article I'm refering to the selection quotas of humans (what we now would call racism) with the US Immigration Restriction Act of 1924) which Gould addresses in "Mismeasure of Man". The obit in the Guardian says, "Gould's critique of the pseudoscience of claims concerning the inheritance of intelligence, developed in one of his best-known books, The Mismeasure Of Man (1981), became a major source for anti-racist campaigners." http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,719828,00.html I think it's safe to say that both fact that he "spent much of his time fighting" + "..." + "and other forms of pseudoscience" is not original research. That he has contributed to related books e.g. the forward in "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Supersition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" by Michael Shermer means he was confortable with the word "pseudoscience". Ttiotsw 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So how about we say "and other forms of what he considered pseudoscience"? That should satisfy everyone.--EveRickert 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gould - Gorbachev of Darwinism

I think the information in this article should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article: Gorbachev of Darwinism 136.183.146.158 11:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, have you ever read Gould? I have. And some of Dawkins' published comments on him. That articles' nonsense, mischaracterising the punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism debate. Dawkins, in the Blind Watchmaker, I believe, said Gould was probably right about the core of his punctuated equilibrium theory, but disagreed strongly to how Gould presented it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the following articles clarify matters further: Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? by Dr Don Batten and Gould grumbles about creationist ‘hijacking’ by Don Batten 136.183.146.158 00:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

...Yes, that's very nice, but I've actually read his books and know what his arguements are. Those are straight-out quote mines. Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the following is true and invalidates your complaint: "Gould in particular made a number of strong statements in the 1970s about the lack of evidence in the fossils for the gradual transformation of one species into another. For example, in 1977 Gould wrote: ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology… . to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’13 (emphasis added)[7] 136.183.146.158 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And the next line, as I recall, is an explanation of why many transitional forms would be difficult to find. Which Dawkins (either Selfish Gene or Blind Watchmaker) agreed with, but thought Gould went too far in saying it was a major split from the past. Adam Cuerden talk 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the evidence that Gould was a Marxist?

I believe the Wikipedia article misses the mark regarding Gould's political beliefs. I cite the following article: What is the evidence that Gould was a Marxist? 136.183.146.158 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons, which partially applies as he died only a couple years ago. That is what is commonly known as a "defamatory article". Adam Cuerden talk 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, look at the article more closely. It cites its claims as can be seen by the footnotes. Also, the article cites some socialist online publications for further reading. I also cite this from the article: "The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.1 The Encyclopedia of the American Left singled Gould out as one of the ‘few scientists [who] have emerged as major public allies of the Left’ and as ‘perhaps the most formidable example of a supportive presence at Left events and for Left causes.’2 [8] 136.183.146.158 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ken, please stop. *Spark* 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the footnotes. One was to a long list of bashings of Gould, and that was the only cite for the claim they affected his science. Bashings by non-biologists, no less. If you can show the original, verifiable cites from his writings or other trustworthy sources, then... Adam Cuerden talk 04:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOMA and Dawkin's criticism

While I don't agree with NOMA I think that whoever included Dawkin's criticism in the same paragraph as Non-Overlapping magisteria was biased. I have separated the two by simply adding criticism above the quotations from Dawkins' Book and I am inclined to transfer them to the controversies section. Mr.georgemark 1st Dec 2006 12:56 GMT

When I added the Dawkins stuff I thought that as the Gould article had a specific section on NOMA (a concept which Gould specifically termed and promoted) I felt the Dawkins criticism WRT NOMA would be lost in the controversies section. Someone hunting for NOMA and criticsm should find the data faster as you have done it so wouldn't recommend hiding it in "Controversies". It is unclear what your allegation of bias on my part is based on. Ttiotsw 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tsiotsw

I think it's unfair to lump up theory and refutiation all in the same paragraph that's where the biased came from. Anyway I think that you agree it is best to keep NOMA and Criticism separately, for no other reason than being politcally correct, by the way I read God delusion myself. Dawkins can really pack a mean punch. I especially enjoyed the chapter where he asked what is the source of morality. Mr.georgemark 4th Dec 2006 13:40 GMT

[edit] Holy!

Watch the links! A holocaust-denier link has been added. (And removed by an anon, thankfully.) We do not want that garbage floating around. Adam Cuerden talk 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Talk%7EStephen_Jay_Gould_e6d2.html"