Talk:Stephen Jay Gould/January to July 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)


I found this interesting article on the controversial issues in his book "The Mismeasures of Man": http://www.eugenics.net/papers/rushton.html

[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)