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).
Isn't it kind of silly to be descrediting the man without even giving him a fair bio?
Besides, a person who expects accurate science from a pop sci writer may as well expect objectivity from newspaper columnists. ;-)
It may be silly, but I don't think we should exclude information that will be part of a full article just because the rest of the information in the full article has yet to be added. It is best to move from the general to the specific but if the general isn't done yet the specific shouldn't have to wait.
And John Maynard Smith is not a pop sci writer, he is a biologist.
- Tim
Without knowing enough about evolutionary theory to comment definitively, I believe Robert Wright is likelier to be the fringe figure here, not Stephen Jay Gould. A quick assay of Mr. Wright's work on the Web suggests to me a certain, errrr, obsessiveness with Gould that doesn't seem healthy, if you know what I'm saying.
My understanding of Gould is that his work is not solidly in the biological mainstream, but that it's still within the purview of legitimate science. John Maynard Smith I know nothing about, so I will keep quiet there.
Wright's latest book was praised by Bill Clinton - I don't know if that makes Wright less of a fringe figure. I don't suppose it could make him more of a fringe figure.
A lot more could be said about Gould. His jihad against sociobiology makes him appear quite ridiculous, especially in light of the fact that his opinions are apparently determined by his political (Marxist) views.
- Tim
Bill Clinton isn't an evolutionary biologist either, so I'm not sure what his praise is worth in the matter.
Stephen Jay Gould as a Marxist is a bit surprising to me. The power of historical contingency is a major theme in his 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.
Claiming that Gould's views are determined by his (alleged) Marxism is a popular theme in Gould-bashing. It comes from a careless metaphorical comparison he made many years ago in a talk on punctuated equilibrium, and is completely baseless.
The article as it's now is ridiculously biased. I would suggest moving the long bashing paragraph to Talk until more content is added where information about the low esteem in which Gould is help by evolutionary biologists can be incorporated in a neutral manner. --AV
It comes from his association and affinity with Richard Lewontin, chairman of Gould's department at Harvard, who claimed "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 shows that Lewontin views science and ideology as separate domains, independent of each other, thereby neatly disproving your own point (and Wilson, who quotes Lewontin with this, says as much). Besides, it says absolutely nothing about Gould. As I wrote, Gould-bashing at its finest. --AV
Or it means that science that seems to contradict Marx, Lenin, or Mao is necessarily wrong. In pratice, this seems to be Lewontin's meaning, as it is the thrust of his opposition to sociobiology. And it does say something about Gould, inasmuch as Gould was clearly in this camp throughout the sociobiology debates.
I'm referring to Gould as the pop sci writer; I've no idea who this smith fellow is, not being a biologist myself. Pointing out that someone who writes on evolution for public consumption may have confused some scientific facts ain't exactly an earth shattering revelation, regardless whether it's true or not. We may as well lament that Isaac Asimov's writings have lacked proper peer review and may be misleading to a lay reader. ;-)
I've moved the passage to this page and reworded it more neutrally without losing its main point (as I take it), that Gould might be wrong about some stuff (oh no!) Calling the guy a communist seems so 1950's, but what the hey, I'll stick that in there too. Maybe we should label all the 'gay' musicians, too? With enough irrelevancies we're sure to find the truth! ;-)
In a discussion of how someone's scientific opinions are shaped by his politics, mentioning his politics is not irrelevent.
The Cambridge Dictionary of Scientists says Stephan Jay Gould was born in 1941. Wikipedia says he was born in 1942. Which is correct? If Wikipedia is wrong, where did this misinformation come from?
Wikipedia also says Gould has been accused of being a Marxist. By whom? On what basis? Where did that information come from?