Stephen Jay Gould

From 2012 Wiki

Revision as of 13:33, 12 July 2008 by Wondrouslyfine (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Stephen Jay Gould's photograph from Natural History Magazine
Stephen Jay Gould's photograph from Natural History Magazine


Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely-read writers of popular science of his generation, leading many commentators to call him "America's unofficial evolutionist laureate". Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Contents

[edit] Life

Gould was born and raised in the Queens borough of New York City, New York. His father Leonard was a court stenographer, and his mother Eleanor was an artist. Raised in a secular Jewish home, Gould did not formally practice organized religion and preferred to be called an agnostic.[1] Politically, though he "had been brought up by a Marxist father," he has stated that his father's politics were "very different" from his own.[2] According to Gould, the most influential political book he read was C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite, as well as the political writings of Noam Chomsky.[3] Gould continued to be exposed to progressive viewpoints on the politicized campus of Antioch College in the early 1960s. In the 1970s, Gould joined a left-wing academic organization called "Science for the People." Throughout his career and writings he spoke out against cultural oppression in all its forms, especially what he saw as pseudoscience in the service of racism and sexism.[4]

Gould was twice married. His first marriage was to artist Deborah Lee, whom he met while attending Antioch College. They were married on October 3, 1965, but later divorced. His second marriage was to sculptor Rhonda Roland Shearer in 1995. Gould had two children, Jesse and Ethan, by his first marriage, and two stepchildren, Jade and London, by his second.

In July of 1982 Gould was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma, a highly terminal form of cancer affecting the abdominal lining. After a difficult two year recovery, Gould published a column for Discover magazine, titled "The Median Isn't the Message," which discusses his reaction to discovering that mesothelioma patients had a median lifespan of only eight months after diagnosis. He then describes the true significance behind this number, and his relief upon realizing that averages are just useful abstractions, and do not encompass the full range of variation. The median is the halfway point, which means that 50% of patients will die before 8 months, but the other half will live longer, potentially much longer. He then needed to find out where his personal characteristics placed him within this range. Considering the cancer was caught early, the fact he was young, optimistic, and had the best treatments available, Gould figured that he should be in the favorable half of the upper statistical range. After an experimental treatment of radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery, Gould made a full recovery, and his column became a source of comfort for many cancer patients.

Gould was also an advocate for medical marijuana. During this bout with cancer, he smoked the illegal drug to alleviate the nausea associated with his medical treatments. According to Gould, his use of marijuana had a "most important effect" on his eventual recovery.[5] In 1998 he testified in the case of Jim Wakeford, a Canadian medical-marijuana user and activist.

Stephen Jay Gould died on May 20, 2002 from a metastatic adenocarcinoma of the lung, a form of lung cancer, which had spread to his brain. This cancer was unrelated to his abdominal cancer, from which he had fully recovered twenty years earlier. He died in his home "in a bed set up in the library of his SoHo loft, surrounded by his wife Rhonda, his mother Eleanor, and the many books he loved."[6][7]

[edit] As a scientist

Gould began his higher education at Antioch College, a liberal arts school in Ohio, graduating with a degree in geology in 1963. During this time he also studied abroad at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom.[8] After completing his graduate work at Columbia University in 1967 under the guidance of Norman Newell, he was immediately hired by Harvard University where he worked until the end of his life (1967-2002). In 1973 Harvard promoted him to Professor of Geology and Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the institution's Museum of Comparative Zoology, and in 1982 he was awarded the title of Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology. In 1983 he was awarded fellowship into the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where he later served as president (1999-01]]). The AAAS news release cited his "numerous contributions to both scientific progress and the public understanding of science." He also served as president of the Paleontological Society (1985-1986) and the Society for the Study of Evolution (1990-1991). In 1989 Gould was elected into the body of the National Academy of Sciences. Through 1996-2002 Gould was Vincent Astor Visiting Research Professor of Biology at New York University.

Early in his career Gould developed with Niles Eldredge the theory of punctuated equilibrium, where evolutionary change occurs relatively rapidly to comparatively longer periods of evolutionary stability.[9] According to Gould, punctuated equilibrium revised a key pillar "in the central logic of Darwinian theory."[10] Some evolutionary biologists have argued that while punctuated equilibrium was "of great interest to biology,"[11] it merely modified neo-Darwinism in a manner which was fully compatible with what had been known before.[12] Others however emphasized its theoretical novelty, and argued that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists"[13] and "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology."[14]

In addition to his work on punctuated equilibrium, Gould made contributions to evolutionary developmental biology, and championed biological constraints as well as other non-selectionist forces in evolution. With Richard Lewontin he wrote an influential 1979 paper entitled "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm,"[15] which introduced the evolutionary concept of "spandrels," a term which originated from the field of architecture. Gould and Lewontin defined "spandrels" to mean a feature of an organism that arises as a necessary side consequence of other features, which is not built directly, piece by piece, by natural selection. Examples include the "masculinized genitalia in female hyenas, exaptive use of an umbilicus as a brooding chamber by snails, the shoulder hump of the giant Irish deer, and several key features of human mentality."[16] The relative frequency of spandrels, so defined, versus adaptive features in nature, remains a controversial topic in evolutionary biology.[17]

Most of Gould's empirical research was on land snails. His early work was on the Bermudian genus Poecilozonites, while his later work concentrated on the West Indian genus Cerion. According to Gould "Cerion is the land snail of maximal diversity in form throughout the entire world. There's 600 described species of this single genus. In fact, they're not really species, they all interbreed, but the names exist to express a real phenomenon which is this incredible morphological diversity. Some are shaped like golf balls, some are shaped like pencils.…Now my main subject is the evolution of form, and the problem of how it is that you can get this diversity amid so little genetic difference, so far as we can tell, is a very interesting one. And if we could solve this we'd learn something general about the evolution of form."[18]

Gould is also one of the most highly cited scientists in the field of evolutionary theory. His 1979 "spandrels" paper has been cited more than 1,600 times. In Palaeobiology—the flagship journal of his own speciality—only Charles Darwin and G.G. Simpson have been cited more often.[19] Gould was also a considerably respected historian of science. Historian Ronald Numbers has been quoted as saying: "I can't say much about Gould's strengths as a scientist, but for a long time I've regarded him as the second most influential historian of science (next to Thomas Kuhn)."[20]

Shortly before his death, Gould published a long treatise recapitulating his version of modern evolutionary theory: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002).

[edit] As a public figure

Gould became widely known through his popular science essays in Natural History magazine and his best-selling books on evolution. Many of his essays were reprinted in collected volumes, such as Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb, while his popular treatises included books such as The Mismeasure of Man, Wonderful Life and Full House.

Gould was a passionate advocate of evolutionary theory and wrote prolifically on the subject, trying to communicate his understanding of contemporary evolutionary biology to a wide audience. A recurring theme in his writings is the history and development of evolutionary, and pre-evolutionary, thought. He was also an enthusiastic baseball fan and made frequent references to the sport in his essays.[21]

Although a proud Darwinist, his emphasis was less gradualist and reductionist than most neo-Darwinists. He also opposed many aspects of sociobiology and its intellectual descendant evolutionary psychology. He spent much of his time fighting against creationism (and the related constructs Creation Science and Intelligent Design). Most notably, Gould provided expert testimony against the equal-time creationism law in McLean v. Arkansas. Gould used the term "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) to describe how, in his view, science and religion could not comment on each other's realm.[22]

Gould also became a noted public face of science, and often appeared on television. He once voiced a cartoon version of himself on the The Simpsons, a widely popular animated television program.[23] The Simpsons also paid tribute to him after his death. In an episode entitled Papa's Got a Brand New Badge, at the beginning of the credits, the message "Dedicated to the memory of Stephen Jay Gould" appears with a picture from the episode he was in.

Gould was also featured prominently as a guest in Ken Burns' PBS documentary Baseball, PBS's Evolution series, CNN's Crossfire, NBC's The Today Show, and was a guest in all seven episodes of the Dutch 90's talkshow-series "Een Schitterend Ongeluk" "A Marvellous Accident." He was also on the Board of Advisors to the influential Children's Television Workshop television show, 3-2-1 Contact, where he made frequent guest appearances. In addition, he is one of several luminaries who are heroes of the climax of the science fiction novel Ancient Shores.

[edit] Controversies

Gould received many accolades for his scholarly work and popular expositions of natural history,[7][24] but was not immune from criticism by those in the biological community who felt his public presentations were, for various reasons, out of step with mainstream evolutionary theory.[25] The public debates between Gould's proponents and detractors have been so quarrelsome that they have been dubbed "The Darwin Wars" by several commentators.[26]

John Maynard Smith, an eminent British evolutionary biologist, was among Gould's strongest critics. Maynard Smith thought that Gould misjudged the vital role of adaptation in biology, and was also critical of Gould's acceptance of species selection as a major component of biological evolution.[27] In a review of Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Maynard Smith wrote that Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."[28] But Maynard Smith has not been consistently negative, writing in a review of The Panda's Thumb that "Stephen Gould is the best writer of popular science now active. . . . Often he infuriates me, but I hope he will go right on writing essays like these."[29] Maynard Smith was also among those who welcomed Gould's reinvigoration of evolutionary paleontology.[30]

One reason for such criticism was that Gould appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, which relegated natural selection to a much less important position. As a result, many non-specialists inferred from his early writings that Darwinian explanations had been proven to be unscientific (which Gould never wanted to imply). His works were sometimes used out of context as a "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved, giving creationists ammunition in their battle against evolutionary theory.[31] Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works.[32].

Gould also had a long-running public feud with E. O. Wilson and other evolutionary biologists over human sociobiology and its descendant evolutionary psychology, which Gould, Lewontin, and Maynard Smith opposed, but which Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Pinker advocated.[33] Gould and Dawkins also disagreed over the importance of gene selection in evolution. Dawkins argued that evolution is best understood as competition among genes (or replicators), while Gould advocated the importance of multi-level competition, including selection amongst genes, cell lineages, organisms, demes, species, and clades. Strong criticism of Gould can be found in chapter 9 of Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and chapter 10 of Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Dennett's criticism has tended to be harsher, while Dawkins praises Gould in evolutionary topics other than those of contention. Pinker accuses Gould, Lewontin and other opponents of evolutionary psychology of being "radical scientists," whose stance on human nature is influenced by politics rather than science.[34] Gould contended that sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists are often heavily influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by their own prejudices and interests.[35]

Gould's interpretation of the Cambrian Burgess Shale fossils in his book Wonderful Life was criticized by Simon Conway Morris in his 1998 book The Crucible Of Creation.[36] Gould had emphasized the striking morphological disparity (or "weirdness") of the Burgess Shale fauna, and the role of contingency in determining which members of this fauna survived and flourished. Conway Morris stressed the phylogenetic linkages between the Cambrian forms and modern taxa, particularly, the importance of convergent evolution in producing general predictable responses to similar environmental circumstances. Paleontologist Richard Fortey noted that prior to the release of Wonderful Life, Conway Morris shared many of Gould's sentiments and views. It was only after publication of Wonderful Life that Conway Morris revised his interpretation and adopted a more progressive stance towards the history of life.[37]. Paleontologists Derek Briggs and Richard Fortey have also made criticisms of Gould's interpretation of Cambrian disparity, arguing that cladistic analyses have incorporated much of the Cambrian fauna as stem groups of living taxa[38], though this is still a subject of intense research in palaeontology.

[edit] Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)

In his book Rocks of Ages, Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to . . . the supposed conflict between science and religion."[39] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[40] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[41]

In his view, "Science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity."[42] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[43]

A similar position has been adopted by the National Academy of Sciences. Its publication Science and Creationism states that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."[44] This was subsequently signed by NAS President Bruce Alberts.

Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion argues against the effectiveness of the NOMA principle in shielding religions from scientific scrutiny. According to Dawkins, "the God Hypothesis," that "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us," is a scientific hypothesis, and is therefore not exempt from scientific examination. Dawkins suggests both that NOMA is wrong and that Gould did not believe in it, but simply wanted to pay lip service to certain aspects of political correctness. With the exception of this last explanation, Sam Harris has suggested the same. (Harris has not openly stated what explanation, if any, he finds tenable.)

[edit] Mismeasure of Man

Template:Main

Stephen Jay Gould was also the author of The Mismeasure of Man (1981), a history and skeptical inquiry of psychometrics and intelligence testing. Gould investigated nineteenth century craniometry, as well as modern-day psychological testing, and claimed that they developed from an unfounded faith in biological determinism. The Mismeasure of Man has generated perhaps the greatest controversy of all of Gould's books, and has received both widespread praise (by skeptics) and extensive criticism (by certain psychologists), including claims of misrepresentation by some scientists.[45]

[edit] Books

Template:SJGould

[edit] Notes

Template:Wikiquote

  1. Stephen Jay Gould, 1997. "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" Natural History 106 (March): 16-22, 61.
  2. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, p. 1018.
  3. Official Transcript for his deposition in McLean v. Arkansas, November 27, 1981, p. 154. When asked about his political views, Gould was quoted as saying: "My political views tend to the left of center. Q. Could you be more specific about your political views? A. I don't know how to be. I am not a joiner, so I am not a member of any organization. So I have always resisted labeling. But if you read my other book, The Mismeasure of Man, which is not included because it is not about evolution, you will get a sense of my political views." p. 153.
  4. Richard Lewontin and chard Levins]] write: "The public intellectual and political life of Steve Gould was extraordinary, if not unique. First, he was an evolutionary biologist and historian of science whose intellectual work had a major impact on our views of the process of evolution. Second, he was, by far, the most widely known and influential expositor of science who has ever written for a lay public. Third, he was a consistent political activist in support of socialism and in opposition to all forms of colonialism and oppression. The figure he most closely resembled in these respects was the British biologist of the 1930's, J. B. S. Haldane, a founder of the modern genetical theory of evolution, a wonderful essayist on science for the general public, and an idiosyncratic Marxist and columnist for the Daily Worker who finally split with the Communist Party over its demand that scientific claims follow Party doctrine." Monthly Review, Nov. 2002.
  5. Stephen Jay Gould, quoted in Lester Grinspoon, 1993. Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 39-41.
  6. Jill Krementz, 2002. "Jill Krementz Photo Journal" New York Social Diary June 2.
  7. 7.0 7.1 The Harvard Gazette, "Paleontologist, author Gould dies at 60" May 20, 2002.
  8. Masha Etkin, 2002. "A Tribute to Stephen Jay Gould '63" Antiochian, Winter edition.
  9. Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, 1972. "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Company, pp. 82-115.
  10. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pp. 15-21.
  11. Richard Dawkins, 1982. The Extended Phenotype. Oxford University Press, p. 101.
  12. John Maynard Smith, 1984. "Paleontology at the high table." Nature 309: 401-402.
  13. Ernst Mayr, 1992."Speciational Evolution or Punctuated Equilibria" In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornell University Press. p. 33.
  14. ibid. p. 24.
  15. "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossion paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme" Proc R Soc Lond B 205 (1161): 581–598. See also Gould's "The Pattern of Life's History" for the background. Published in John Brockman The Third Culture, pp. 55-56.
  16. Stephen Jay Gould, 1997. "The Exaptive Excellence of Spandrels as a Term and Prototype" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94: 10750-55.
  17. John Maynard Smith writes: "By and large, I think their [Spandrels] paper had a healthy effect. . . . Their critique forced us to clean up our act and to provide evidence for our stories. But adaptationism remains the core of biological thinking." "Genes, Memes, & Minds" The New York Review of Books, 42 (Nov. 30, 1995): 47; and a similar appraisal is reflected by Ernst Mayr in his paper "How to Carry Out the Adaptationist Program?" The American Naturalist, 121 (March 1983): 324-334.
  18. Interview, quoted in L. Wolpert and A. Richards, 1988. A Passion for Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 145.
  19. Donald Prothero "Evolution Revolution: Paleontology, History, Biography" Festschrift lecture for Stephen Jay Gould, 2000.
  20. Michael Shermer, 2002. "This View of Science" Social Studies of Science 32 (August): 492.
  21. Gould also publish a posthumous anthology of baseball essays Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville. See his essays "Thcience Studies", "The streak of streaks", and "Baseball's reliquary".
  22. Gould went on to develop this idea in some detail, particularly in the books Rocks of Ages (1999) and The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox (2003). In a 1982 essay for Natural History Gould writes: "Our failure to discern a universal good does not record any lack of insight or ingenuity, but merely demonstrates that nature contains no moral messages framed in human terms. Morality is a subject for philosophers, theologians, students of the humanities, indeed for all thinking people. The answers will not be read passively from nature; they do not, and cannot, arise from the data of science. The factual state of the world does not teach us how we, with our powers for good and evil, should alter or preserve it in the most ethical manner." Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonmoral Nature" Natural History 91 (February): 19-26; and reprinted in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. New York: W.W. Norton, 1983, pp. 42-43.
  23. FOX. The Simpsons. "Lisa the Skeptic November 23, 1997.
  24. Michael Shermer, 2002. "This View of Science" Social Studies of Science 32/4 (August): 518.
    Awards include a National Book Award for The Panda’s Thumb, a National Book Critics Circle Award for The Mismeasure of Man, the Phi Beta Kappa Book Award for Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, and a Pulitzer Prize Finalist for Wonderful Life, on which Gould commented ‘close but, as they say, no cigar’. Forty-four honorary degrees and 66 major fellowships, medals, and awards bear witness to the depth and scope of his accomplishments in both the sciences and humanities: Member of the National Academy of Sciences, President and Fellow of AAAS, MacArthur Foundation ‘genius’ Fellowship (in the first group of awardees), Humanist Laureate from the Academy of Humanism, Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow of the European Union of Geosciences, Associate of the Muséum National D’Histoire Naturelle Paris, the Schuchert Award for excellence in paleontological research, Scientist of the Year from Discover magazine, the Silver Medal from the Zoological Society of London, the Gold Medal for Service to Zoology from the Linnean Society of London, the Edinburgh Medal from the City of Edinburgh, the Britannica Award and Gold Medal for dissemination of public knowledge, Public Service Award from the Geological Society of America, Anthropology in Media Award from the American Anthropological Association, Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of Biology Teachers, Distinguished Scientist Award from UCLA, the Randi Award for Skeptic of the Year from the Skeptics Society, and a Festschrift in his honour at Caltech.
  25. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (1997) write:
    John Maynard Smith, one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, recently summarized in the NYRB the sharply conflicting assessments of Stephen Jay Gould: "Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists 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." (NYRB, Nov. 30th 1995, p. 46). No one can take any pleasure in the evident pain Gould is experiencing now that his actual standing within the community of professional evolutionary biologists is finally becoming more widely known. . . But as Maynard Smith points out, more is at stake. Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory"—or as Ernst Mayr says of Gould and his small group of allies—they "quite conspicuously misrepresent the views of [biology's] leading spokesmen." Indeed, although Gould characterizes his critics as "anonymous" and "a tiny coterie," nearly every major evolutionary biologist of our era has weighed in a vain attempt to correct the tangle of confusions that the higher profile Gould has inundated the intellectual world with.* The point is not that Gould is the object of some criticism—so properly are we all—it is that his reputation as a credible and balanced authority about evolutionary biology is non-existent among those who are in a professional position to know. *These include Ernst Mayr, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Bill Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Brian Charlesworth, Jerry Coyne, Robert Trivers, John Alcock, Randy Thornhill, and many others.
    It should be noted that Ernst Mayr in this quotation is not speaking of Gould in particular, and does not mention him by name, but is speaking of many critics of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis generally. Some of the names Tooby and Cosmides cite are also quite debatable—Mayr, Williams, Hamilton, Dawkins, Wilson, Coyne, and Trivers, for example, have shown great respect for Gould as a scientist. In reference to Maynard Smith's comments, Gould writes "Darwinian Fundamentalism" New York Review of Books 44 (June 12, 1997): 34-37:
    A false fact can be refuted, a false argument exposed; but how can one respond to a purely ad hominem attack? This harder, and altogether more discouraging, task may best be achieved by exposing internal inconsistency and unfairness of rhetoric. . . . It seems futile to reply to an attack so empty of content, and based only on comments by anonymous critics . . . Instead of responding to Maynard Smith's attack against my integrity and scholarship, citing people unknown and with arguments unmentioned, let me, instead, merely remind him of the blatant inconsistency between his admirable past and lamentable present. Some sixteen years ago he wrote a highly critical but wonderfully supportive review of my early book of essays, The Panda's Thumb, stating: "I hope it will be obvious that my wish to argue with Gould is a compliment, not a criticism." He then attended my series of Tanner Lectures at Cambridge in 1984 and wrote in a report for Nature, and under the remarkable title "Paleontology at the High Table," the kindest and most supportive critical commentary I have ever received. He argued that the work of a small group of American paleobiologists had brought the entire subject back to theoretical centrality within the evolutionary sciences. . . . So we face the enigma of a man who has written numerous articles, amounting to tens of thousands of words, about my work—always strongly and incisively critical, always richly informed (and always, I might add, enormously appreciated by me). But now Maynard Smith needs to canvass unnamed colleagues to find out that my ideas are "hardly worth bothering with." He really ought to be asking himself why he has been bothering about my work so intensely, and for so many years.
  26. Andrew Brown, 1999. The Darwin Wars. New York: Simon & Schuster; Richard Morris, 2001. The Evolutionists. New York: Henry Holt & Company; Steven Rose "Obituaries: Stephen Jay Gould" The Guardian (May 22, 2002): 20; Harvey Blume "The Origin of Specious" The American Prospect 13 (August 23, 2002): 41-43.
  27. John Maynard Smith, 1981. "Did Darwin get it right?" The London Review of Books. 3 (11): 10-11; Also reprinted in Did Darwin Get it Right? New York: Chapman and Hall, 1989, pp. 148-156.
  28. John Maynard Smith, 1995. "Genes, Memes, & Minds" The New York Review of Books 42 (Nov.): 46-48. Also quoted in John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, 1997. "Letter to the Editor of The New York Review of Books"
  29. John Maynard Smith, 1981. "Review of The Panda's Thumb" The London Review of Books. September, pp. 17-30; Reprinted as "Tinkering," in Did Darwin Get it Right? pp. 94, 97.
  30. John Maynard Smith, 1984. "Paleontology at the high table." Nature 309: 401-402.
  31. Robert Wright, 1999. "The Accidental Creationist" The New Yorker (Dec. 13): 56-65.
  32. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as fact and theory" Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37.
  33. But Gould also writes: "Sociobiologists have broadened their range of selective stories by invoking concepts of inclusive fitness and kin selection to solve (successfully I think) the vexatious problem of altruism—previously the greatest stumbling block to a Darwinian theory of social behavior. . . . Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well. For it represents an extension of basic Darwinism to a realm where it should apply." Gould, 1980. "Sociobiology and the Theory of Natural Selection" In G. W. Barlow and J. Silverberg, eds., Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture? Boulder CO: Westview Press, pp. 257-269.
  34. Steven Pinker, 2002. The Blank Slate. New York: Penguin.
  35. Stephen Jay Gould , 1997. "Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism" New York Review of Books, June 26, pp. 47-52.
  36. Gould and Conway Morris debated the issue in a piece titled "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" published in Nat. Hist. 107 (10): 48-55.
  37. Richard Fortey, 1998. "Shock Lobsters" London Review of Books, Vol. 20, October 1.
  38. Derek Briggs and Richard Fortey, 2005. "Wonderful strife" Paleobiology 31 (June): 94-112.
  39. Stephen Jay Gould, 1999. Rocks of Ages. Ballantine Books, p. 3.
  40. ibid. p. 5.
  41. ibid. p. 6.
  42. ibid. p. 65.
  43. ibid. pp. 69-70.
  44. NAS, 1999. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences Second Edition, p. ix.
  45. Arthur Jensen, 1982. "The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons" Contemporary Education Review 1 (2): 121-135.

[edit] External links

Personal tools