Talk:Stephen Jay Gould/June to December 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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 philosopher. 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."[1] 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 before we finish, I wanted 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 few. His appreciation for 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 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.--Margareta 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)[2] 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 [3] 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)

[edit] Jay Gould

Is Stephen Jay Gould related to the infamous 19th century financier with the similar name? If so, what is the relation? It is unmentioned in either article. --Christofurio 19:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)