![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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'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)
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)
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":
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:
PE and species selection:
On constraint:
On the power of selection relative to other forces:
I can't help but include a few quotations on historiography:
[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 allows Gleng 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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?
So how about we say "and other forms of what he considered pseudoscience"? That should satisfy everyone.-- Margareta 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
The article, Darwinian Fundamentalism, discusses an article by Gould, but appears less than faithfully explain Gould's opinions on his fellow scientisits. It should be merge, unless expanded, and cleaned up. FGT2 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
“ | Stephen Wolfram, mathematician and physicist has also publicly criticized Gould for his idea that natural selection is necessary to pare down evolution to a few robust forms [1]. In his doctoral thesis on shells, Gould notes that while there are thousands of potential shell shapes, only a half dozen actual shell forms exist in the world, and he uses this fact as evidence of natural selection paring down variability. Wolfram's interests lie in studying how complexity can arise from the interactions of simple rule sets. From this, he shows that not only is there a mathematical error in Gould's argument, but that there are only six possible shell shapes, all of which exist in the world. Inverting Gould's idea, Wolfram suggests that natural selection, rather than paring down evolution to a few robust forms, instead evolves organisms outwards to fill all the possible forms available to them by the rules of cellular automata. | ” |
The more I read this, the less it makes sense. Adam Cuerden talk 10:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It has always troubled me that in the Simpsons episode Lisa the Skeptic, Gould appears to do himself a disservice. He initially asserts that scientific testing on a supposed angel skeleton was "inconclusive". Yet at the end of the episode Gould admits to never testing the sample. It always seemed incredibly inexplicable to me, as if there was more going on offscreen than was shown. Did Gould or any associated parties ever explain why this was so? Even if it was nothing more than bad writing on the part of the makers, it's not a great advert for Gould's adherence to scientific method. ClarenceAtomkraft 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a pleasure to pass such a good article. It clearly meets all the GA criteria. It does a particularly good job of maintaining NPOV in discussing the numerous controversies in which Gould was involved, and I can tell from reading some of the comments on this page that it was not easy getting there :) I do have a couple of suggestions for the Controversies section. It should say something about what his objections to Sociobiology were. In particular it should have a couple of sentences linking his opposition to sociobiology to the opposition to biological determinism and the concern over the historical misuse of science (or psuedoscience) in support of racism and sexism that are mentioned elswhere in the article. The connections may not be obvious to people not already very familiar with these topics. The discussion of his opposition to gene selectionism is better, but it seems to me that he emphasized selection at the organism/phenotype level more than the species level. In fact I seem to recall that at times he was quite critical of group selection. Despite these minor concerns, I want to say again that this is a wonderful article. Rusty Cashman 08:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[This is in response to someone who deleted Maynard Smith because they believed he was not critical of Human Sociobiology]
Let me say first that the dichotomy between Gould, Lewontin, and Maynard Smith compared to Pinker, Dawkins and Dennett is misleading. Between them all exist a wide range of opinion—and even some surprising overlap on important points, along with nontrivial disagreements among supporters. However the division, as expressed in the article, is not totally unfair. John Maynard Smith has frequently made his objections to human sociobiology (or evolutionary psychology, if you prefer) known. In a revealing interview, he states:
“ | I'm very interested in evolution of social behavior of animals. I think that human beings are actually so different from other animals in the degree of cultural and ethical and mystical and religious and political concepts which influence their behavior that it isn’t widely fruitful to think about them just as if they were another animal. I think that what Ed Wilson has done for us by introducing the term ‘sociobiology’ is to make it harder to think clearly about human behavior. And I suppose I’m showing another aspect of my upbringing. I was a young man when Hitler was in power, I was in Berlin in 1938 just leading up to the Munich Settlement, and the whole of my thinking about the world has been much influenced by belonging to that generation. For me, the application of biology to human beings means Rosenberg and the race theories, so I’m obviously a bit reluctant to get involved in biological applications to human behavior. "Making it formal” interview with Maynard Smith in Lewis Wolpert and Alison Richards, A Passion for Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 132-133. | ” |
In Maynard Smith's moderately critical review of E. O. Wilson's On Human Nature, he expresses his general skepticism, while displaying some openness to certain cases:
“ | To me, the most interesting question is how far evolutionary biology can contribute to the human sciences. As I have explained, I am a doubter. But I have been wrong on this issue before. Ten years ago I regarded incest avoidance as an entirely cultural phenomenon; only a bigot could hold this view now. "Contraints on Human Behavior" republished in Did Darwin Get it Right? 1989, p. 85. | ” |
In 1985 Philip Kitcher wrote—according to Maynard Smith—an "admirable book," called Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, which was a technical critique of current sociobiological arguments for human behavior. Part of Kitcher's critique was to divide the field into two styles or spheres; first, those who argue as E.O. Wilson do (which is to say, naively), and second, those who argue with more rigor, as Richard Alexander, relying on testable relationships of human behavior and inclusive fitness. Referring to the latter form, Maynard Smith writes: "Unlike Wilson's arguments, which seem to me generally ill-formulated and empty of content, this claim is worth taking seriously, even though it is probably false." And to reiterate the point again: "This school of sociobiologists do say things about real societies that are testable; I find it hard to believe that they are right, but at least they are not vacuous." ("Biology and the Behavior of Man" ibid. p. 92). And finally this video clip from the Peoples Archive is rather interesting.
Even Dennett has expressed criticism of human sociobiology, calling it a form of "greedy reductionism," but has also expressed sympathy towards the explanations proposed by evolutionary psychology. Intern, Gould himself has expressed strong support for the sociobiological explanations of altruism proposed by Robert Trivers. Clearly the issue is more complicated than the article implies, but when introducing difficult subjects it is convenient sometimes to set up a controversy in a dialectical way. Miguel Chavez 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Did Gould get a degree as a science historian? If not, why is he listed as a science historian?
If he never got a degree as a science historian, does this blurb in the article justify the title "historian of science" :
Travb ( talk) 02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph about the reception of this book doesn't explain why there were different viewpoints, and the only reference for the comments is a link that doesn't work. -- Parkwells ( talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph: 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. ... as I beleive it was incorrectly interpreted by the previous editor. Gould is not talking about sociobiology as applied to humans - the word was originally used to mean all studies of animal social behaviour, and this is the definition that had currency in 1980. Also, he doesn't mean "altruism" the way a Wikipedia reader would understand it. He means "altruism" in the context of eusocial animals like bees and ants - it has a very different definition and meaning. Dissembly ( talk) 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Project Steve get some tiny mention in this article? (If it is there, I couldn't find it while looking for information on the project) Huw Powell ( talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it not blindingly obvious to all that the lead section of this article is too short by a country mile? And yes, that is part of the GA criteria. Please, somebody expand it to meet the requirements of WP:LS so as to avoid having it delisted.
I also note that a familiar someone has noted this in the to-do list already, yet it still seems to have escaped everyones' notice. It seems no amount of effort I make is making people more aware of the requirements of lead sections (or the GA requirements). Richard001 ( talk) 07:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
zxvsdbdbc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.99.249 ( talk) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
What does this even mean?
I see how the first sentence downplays sociobiology's importance by saying "No, sorry, some biological components of our psychology are strongly influenced by constraints, so you're theory can't fully handle such components". Yes, that makes sense but it doesn't "undermine an essential premise" does it? Do relativity & quantum mechanics "undermine" one another?
I'm afraid the second sentence doesn't make much sense period. Gould certainly knew that some aspects of cognition were "selected for."
Well, I'm afraid the whole section sounds like OR currently. Can we just quote his own words? I mean, he's got plenty of word on the subject! 67.85.188.249 ( talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
"...all biological traits as things that had been naturally selected for specifically." Specifically what? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
He is listed under both Jewish Atheists and Jewish Agnostics. Someone have the RS? 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that you can be both, considering if you were agnostic, why would you be atheist? I always thought as agnosticism (being one myself) as just saying I don't know, and nor does anyone. 72.199.100.223 ( talk) 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note discussion to move nonoverlapping magesteria at Talk:Non-overlapping magisteria#Move?. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The tone of this article is generally defensive. It cites critics, but tries then to defend Gould in a partisan fashion. For example, it cites Maynard Smith's critical remarks, and then mentions earlier occasions when Maynard Smith was laudatory (which to my mind is irrelevant to the criticisms made in the article in MS's review of Dennett). It would be a lot better to take a more distanced approach. It should be acknowledged that Gould did raise the ire of many evolutionary biologists for the good reason that his presentation of their views was often quite polemical and scientifically biased. Of course, this doesn't mean that Gould was not an eminent scientist who made real contributions. What it means is that he wasn't a cool-headed and fair critic of positions opposed to his own. Philonous2 ( talk) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Philonous 2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philonous2 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The exercise of classifying a scientific idea as either a hypothesis or theory is somewhat subjective, and relies on varying understandings of the two terms. What generally makes a scientific theory indeed a theory at all are two principal things. One, that it is a broad explanation which incorporates other hypotheses to explain a series of observations. And second, that it has withstood critical testing and scrutiny, and thereby functions as a plausible explanation by professionals in the scientific community. [2] By such a definition punctuated equilibrium surely meets the minimum requirement for a scientific theory.
While practitioners in the fields of paleontology and evolutionary biology use both terms to describe the model of evolution proposed by Eldredge and Gould, the term most often used in the professional literature today is the word "theory."
Notable evolutionists who favor the word theory include Ernst Mayr, [3] who was among the greatest evolutionists of the 20th century. And although Mayr began as a critic of punctuated equilibrium, he became a strong devotee as time went on. [4] The eminent evolutionist John Maynard Smith disagreed with Gould about the tempo of evolution, but he nevertheless saw fit to describe PE as a theory, [5] which if true was saying something very significant about the character of evolutionary change. Richard Dawkins—perhaps the best known evolutionist today—devoted an entire chapter to PE in his book The Blind Watchmaker, and while critical, designates PE with the word "theory," in this book [6] and others. [7] [8] [9] Philosopher of biology, and outspoken critic of Gould, Michael Ruse also describes PE not only as a theory [10] [11] but a genuine scientific paradigm. [12] [13] Mark Ridley, another critic of Gould and former student of Richard Dawkins, wrote a definitive textbook on evolution titled Evolution. Throughout the text Ridley also prefers to use the word theory. [14] Other prominent scientists include George C. Williams, [15] G. Ledyard Stebbins, [16] Michael T. Ghiselin, [17] Francisco J. Ayala, [18] Richard Lewontin, [19] Richard Levins, [20] Steven Rose, [21] Sean B. Carroll, [22] Steven Pinker, [23] Norman D. Newell, [24] Jerry Coyne, [25] Brian Charlesworth, [26] William Provine, [27] John Turner, [28] Stuart Kauffman, [29] paleoanthropologists such as C. Loring Brace, [30] Richard Leakey, [31] Tim White, [32] Ian Tattersall, [33] and historians of science Peter J. Bowler, [34] Frank Sulloway, [35] Michael Shermer, [36] and Frank Rhodes. [37] Then of course there are the numerous writings of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]
After the publication of Eldredge and Gould's 1972 paper, numerous paleontologists sought to investigate their claims, and have contributed greatly to the understanding of evolutionary tempo. Paleontologists who describe PE as a theory rather than hypothesis include
David Raup,
[49] David Sepkoski,
[50]
Richard Fortey,
[51]
Peter Ward,
[52] J. William Schopf,
[53]
Robert L. Carroll
[54]
Elisabeth Vrba,
[55] Donald Prothero,
[56]
Tim Flannery,
[57]
Douglas Erwin,
[58]
[59] Warren D. Allmon,
[60]
Robert T. Bakker,
[61]
John R. Horner,
[62] Michael McKinney,
[63] Bruce Lieberman,
[64]
Mark McMenamin,
[65] Patricia Princehouse,
[66] David Fastovsky,
[67] John Huss,
[68] Richard Bambach,
[69] Anthony Hallam,
[70] Arthur Boucot,
[71] John Alroy,
[72] David Norman,
[73] D. B. Lazarus,
[74] Richard Kerr,
[75] and many, many others.
[76]
[77]
[78]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[79]
To justify the preference for the designation "hypothesis" we our provided with Douglas Futuyma's principle textbook Evolutionary Biology. While both Futuyma and his textbook are very well respected in the field of evolutionary biology, Futuyma's practice of dubbing punctuated equilibrium a hypothesis is: first, unrepresentative of most biologists; second, frequently inconsistent; [80] and third a reflection of Futuyma's conservative employment of the word theory. For example, in his book Science on Trial Futuyma goes as far as to say, "Every scientific claim is a hypothesis, however well supported it may be." [81] This point is further elaborated upon in the opening pages of his textbook Evolutionary Biology. There he states his preference to restrict his use of the word "theory" to describe a "complex of statements" which are composed of a large "body of hypotheses" which "does not stand or fall on the basis of a single critical test." [82] Futuyma thereby limits the word theory to such things as "atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of plate tectonics," but not others theories like allopatric speciation, the idea that hemoglobin carries oxygen in our blood, or the "hypothesis that smoking causes cancer." [82] Futuyma also makes a distinction between the "pattern of punctuated equilibrium" and the "hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium." The pattern represents the empirics of the theory, and hypothesis represents the causal agency. Yet in other places he uses the word "theory" to identify the whole structure of punctuated equilibrium. [80] [83] With these facts in mind, Futuyma should hardly be considered the definitive word on the matter.
The words: tempo, mode, pattern, model, hypothesis, theory, thesis, idea, concept, and paradigm have all been used to describe punctuated equilibrium in the literature (and they are often used interchangeably).
[84]
[85]
[86] In fact Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge made it a point to use the more neutral word "picture" in their 1972 paper to avoid what they called a "tedious debate" about what to label their new idea.
[87] However as they began to develop PE over the years you see a notable shift in their language. They switch to the word model,Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). and eventually move to the word theory.
Lastly, just as an experiment I ran the phrases "hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium" and "theory of punctuated equilibrium" through Google's digitized book search engine. The phrase with the word theory returned 2,080 results whereas the former only returned 119. The same pattern resulted using Google Scholar, with the word theory returning 1,010 results and the word hypothesis only returning 60.
Today it is obvious that the word theory dominates the professional literature with the highest relative frequency. As such it should be used in this article. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The sub-section Evolutionary Developmental Biology describes the process of heterochrony encompassing "two distinct processes" of pedomorphosis and terminal additions. This is a bit misleading. From what I've read in Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Gould builds upon Gavin de Beer's work with embryos which states that there are eight "morphological modes" of heterochrony: caenogenesis, adult variation, neoteny, hypermorphosis, deviation, retardation, reduction, and acceleration. Gould states that these can be reduced to only two processes: acceleration and retardation (Gould, 1977, pp. 222-223).
Gould defines pedomorphosis as a consequence of progenesis or neoteny, but terminal addition is defined as a mechanism of Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law, which is mostly considered today to be an obsolete theory. I think the article is confusing "terminal additions" with acceleration and retardation, but I may be misunderstanding a broader definition of the term if there is one. Consider revising. - Ano-User ( talk) 11:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
In the section on nonoverlapping magisteria, a controversy is introduced from the perspective of Richard Dawkins: that religion does not even merit a magisterium of its own. The other side of the controversy is not addressed: that the magisteria ought very much to overlap. Of course, I'm not talking about the magisterium of "religion," per se, but a movement toward the inclusion of "spirituality" in higher education is being led by Sherry Hoppe, Bruce Speck, Parker Palmer and the like. This philosophy suggests that science is more meaningful when couched in terms of its ethical and moral implications and these questions should be openly considered in classroom discussions where the empirical research is being presented. As long as the controversy was introduced in this article, perhaps we should include this perspective from the other end of the controversy's spectrum. Jesserjames ( talk) 04:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Under nationality it says "American". America is a very big continent. Therefore I wonder where in the American Continent was this connotation refering to? Or to say it better in which of all American countries was he born? Was he born in Cuba or in Argentina? Or perhaps he was born in the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enciclopedikt ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
In reviewing the archives, I was surprised to discover that the SPLC was qualified to evaluate the opinions of scientists and that their opinion could be used to exclude scientific commentary from this article. Now I am not qualified to evaluate the material that was under discussion, but I strongly doubt the qualifications of the SPLC on scientific material also. I enjoyed Gould as a popular writer of science, but I always felt that there was a certain "smarminess" and "contempt" under the surface. Shazaam! The "science" always supported his "politics" which he carefully never directly stated but you could always “feel” under the surface. Seki1949 ( talk) 07:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my contribs are perceived by 121a0012 as "adding unwelcome bias to the article" [4]. Obviously, that wasn't my intention, and I tried to choose my words very carefully. It is however, totally irrelevant whether my contribs are based on a "misunderstanding of punctuated equilibria" on my side, since I merely gave an account of the views of (renowned) other scientists (which is what we're supposed to do here at wikipedia). Please double check the material I added, it is all reliably sourced. In other words: your beef is not with me, but with Dawkins. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 06:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why there is no section about Gould's leftist politics? He was a member of the radical People's Scientists group, and had acknowledged the influence of his Marxist/communist parents, being a "red diaper baby," many times, including in particular that his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was in part due to the fact that he paid attention to his Marxism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.87.70 ( talk) 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that the "Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject", and I frankly don't understand the rationale... Could someone shed some light on this? Otherwise I'd delete the tag. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Although they are clearly not related, is it possible that he was named for Jay Gould? If anyone knows anything about this, it should be included in the article (not that SJG would have been thrilled with the connection). 76.106.149.108 ( talk) 17:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit. The quote from the Nature editorial is given undue weight here, and as I alluded to in my edit comment, is taken out of context. Klortho ( talk) 23:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
We have at Wikipedia no requirement to reflect all parts or the whole history of a scientific discussion. As such, it is not necessary to make a report of a full scientific debate. Wikipedia should reflect the consensus, and also other notable opinions, but we don't have to include the debate leading up to that state.
In this case, Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" was criticized in a paper. That paper was published in Nature, but with a bit of "Byers beware" from the Nature editors. If you read between the lines, Nature published the paper not because it was good, but because it was about time that somebody attempted to scrutinized Gould's work, and, on their own words, as "encouragement to scrutinize the celebrated while they are still alive." Ie, while he still could defend himself. The paper has subsequently also gotten criticism from other sources: [5], [6], [7]. It's clearly not a paper that is particularly well-received or notable. Adding to that, the paper only criticizes his analysis of Morton's skull measurement data, but none of the other parts of the book. When keeping all this in mind, it's clear that letting that paper take up the majority of the space under "The Mismeasure of Man" heading is giving this paper undue weight. I would suggest that you remove all mention of this paper from the article, as it gives it undue weight. Making a summary of the controversy is impossible, I think, but you could change the main article link to go directly to the "Reception" section for easy access. OpenFuture ( talk) 09:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |
I took some time to write that opinion and explain it carefully so it would not be confusing, and it is therefore maybe rather long. I do realize now that this apparently was a mistake. I apologize for that. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring all the silliness above... my take is that the material is well suited for that section and is not being presented with undue weight or bias, either. The entire Mismeasure debate, as far as it played out in journals, was by and large a good example of tempered scientific dispute, executed in the proper fora. There is no reason to omit the details here.-- Elmidae ( talk) 09:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
To me, the material in this edit is interesting and relevant. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 17:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have read much, though not all of the discussion here. In my opinion the Lewis-Nature section fairly summarizes the key points of the debate. Of course, much more could be said both in favor and (much) against the Lewis paper. The arguments are often quite technical and there is no space to detail them here. But as others have already stated, the section is already too long. I would like to see the section remain as it was. If anything is trimmed however it should be the two sentences on bias (which is interesting but not vital to the controversy). I believe the discussion of the Lewis paper should not be deleted, as it is (unfortunately) the most prominent discussion of Gould in the last decade, and has received much press. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 07:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to justify the inclusion of Friedrich Wilhelm Graf in this article. Graf is a fairly obscure German theologian, and his work does not intersect with the work of Gould, or the main body of literature apropos of Gould. Virtually all is work is published in German, and is inaccessible to most English speakers. Any reader familiar with Gould would also be quite puzzled why this obscure author is included (twice) in the main body of this article.
The editor who included Graf takes his claims at face value, at writes them up as if they were simply fact. These are Graf's opinions (and most of us will have to take this on faith, since they are published in German). Several times in Gould's career he did claim that creationism is a "uniquely American phenomenon." But is this editor justified in saying Gould's claim was "a significant error"? Do secondary sources agree that this is an "error"? Was it an error or accurate when the claim was made? [1] [2] And why is this error deemed "significant"? Other sources certainly echo Gould's thesis. [3] [4]
According to Graf, "In Germany, one in five considers the biblical myth to be true." This agrees with 2006 Michigan State University study, and a 2011 Ipsos poll. This is a sizable minority position, no doubt, but it remains a minority nonetheless. ( See graph for details.) I don't think the editor is therefore justified in claiming that Gould made a "a significant error." Gould did not claim that creationism did not exist among other Western nations. He did not claim it was not growing at some rate. Only that it was not a "phenomenon." He did not define what this meant, or suggest limits or ratios. Although contemporary polling suggest Gould was probably right.
Furthermore, I think the editor subtlety misrepresents Graf's claim. In the one English source we are provided, Graf argues that the "religio-cultural movement" is growing—creationism being only a single facet of this movement. And even if this is true, it does not imply that creationism itself has grown to become a "phenomenon" among Western nations outside the US. If Graf's opinions about creationism are to be included in an article about Gould, the editor should try to keep the language more neutral and stick to what the original sources say. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 01:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I often see Gould described, without qualification, as "a Marxist". I think we need to state in the article exactly what type of supposed Marxist he was since this term has been used an abused by a wide array of people (particularly in Western Europe and North America). At the moment the article states that he was inspired by C. Wright Mills, which suggests a 1960s, "right on, man", New Left, revisionist American-campus Marijuanese-Marxism, rather than some sort of serious Marxist-Leninism (ie - anything going on in the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, China, etc). Do we have any decent reference material which lays out specifically what his point of view was? Claíomh Solais ( talk) 10:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
As discussed at
Talk:Scientific racism#New study noticed in Ars "Ouellette, Jennifer (4 October 2018).
"There's new evidence confirming bias of the "father of scientific racism"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 7 October 2018. {{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) – so that's a potential secondary source . . .
dave souza,
talk
18:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)"
User User:2601:43:101:75a0:94ee:e0c2:f9f3:ac9afo has included the following edit to the The Mismeasure of Man section: "Anthropologist Paul Wolff Mitchell published an analysis of Morton's original, unpublished data, which neither Gould nor subsequent commentators had directly addressed, and concluded that while Gould's specific argument about Morton's unconscious bias in measurement is not supported upon closer examination, it was true, as Gould had claimed, that Morton's racial biases influenced how he reported and interpreted his measurements." [1]
Previously this was perceived as extraneous material which lends undue weight to subject that is already covered disproportionately in comparison to other aspects of Gould's professional work. The article is also written by an anthropology PhD candidate. Discussion on whether this should remain, be removed, or be limited to a citation would be welcome. Cesaravi ( talk) 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
References
There appears to be a great contrast between Gould's reputation as the science popularizer known to the general public and the opinion of his professional colleagues who thought that most of his ideas were outright wrong.A few critical quotations can be found on this page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 ( talk) 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Yesi10garcia.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This page may need a little more research. Footnote 11 does not support "Bayside," and PS 26 is in Fresh Meadows (supported by fn 12). I was told by a neighbor of his that he did live in Fresh Meadows, but that's worthless information here. Danchall ( talk) 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Link 29 redirects to an Indian gambling website, not the purported article by Gould itself (which is quoted in the sentence anchored by Reference 29). 60.84.72.212 ( talk) 02:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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'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)
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)
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":
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:
PE and species selection:
On constraint:
On the power of selection relative to other forces:
I can't help but include a few quotations on historiography:
[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 allows Gleng 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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?
So how about we say "and other forms of what he considered pseudoscience"? That should satisfy everyone.-- Margareta 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
The article, Darwinian Fundamentalism, discusses an article by Gould, but appears less than faithfully explain Gould's opinions on his fellow scientisits. It should be merge, unless expanded, and cleaned up. FGT2 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
“ | Stephen Wolfram, mathematician and physicist has also publicly criticized Gould for his idea that natural selection is necessary to pare down evolution to a few robust forms [1]. In his doctoral thesis on shells, Gould notes that while there are thousands of potential shell shapes, only a half dozen actual shell forms exist in the world, and he uses this fact as evidence of natural selection paring down variability. Wolfram's interests lie in studying how complexity can arise from the interactions of simple rule sets. From this, he shows that not only is there a mathematical error in Gould's argument, but that there are only six possible shell shapes, all of which exist in the world. Inverting Gould's idea, Wolfram suggests that natural selection, rather than paring down evolution to a few robust forms, instead evolves organisms outwards to fill all the possible forms available to them by the rules of cellular automata. | ” |
The more I read this, the less it makes sense. Adam Cuerden talk 10:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It has always troubled me that in the Simpsons episode Lisa the Skeptic, Gould appears to do himself a disservice. He initially asserts that scientific testing on a supposed angel skeleton was "inconclusive". Yet at the end of the episode Gould admits to never testing the sample. It always seemed incredibly inexplicable to me, as if there was more going on offscreen than was shown. Did Gould or any associated parties ever explain why this was so? Even if it was nothing more than bad writing on the part of the makers, it's not a great advert for Gould's adherence to scientific method. ClarenceAtomkraft 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a pleasure to pass such a good article. It clearly meets all the GA criteria. It does a particularly good job of maintaining NPOV in discussing the numerous controversies in which Gould was involved, and I can tell from reading some of the comments on this page that it was not easy getting there :) I do have a couple of suggestions for the Controversies section. It should say something about what his objections to Sociobiology were. In particular it should have a couple of sentences linking his opposition to sociobiology to the opposition to biological determinism and the concern over the historical misuse of science (or psuedoscience) in support of racism and sexism that are mentioned elswhere in the article. The connections may not be obvious to people not already very familiar with these topics. The discussion of his opposition to gene selectionism is better, but it seems to me that he emphasized selection at the organism/phenotype level more than the species level. In fact I seem to recall that at times he was quite critical of group selection. Despite these minor concerns, I want to say again that this is a wonderful article. Rusty Cashman 08:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[This is in response to someone who deleted Maynard Smith because they believed he was not critical of Human Sociobiology]
Let me say first that the dichotomy between Gould, Lewontin, and Maynard Smith compared to Pinker, Dawkins and Dennett is misleading. Between them all exist a wide range of opinion—and even some surprising overlap on important points, along with nontrivial disagreements among supporters. However the division, as expressed in the article, is not totally unfair. John Maynard Smith has frequently made his objections to human sociobiology (or evolutionary psychology, if you prefer) known. In a revealing interview, he states:
“ | I'm very interested in evolution of social behavior of animals. I think that human beings are actually so different from other animals in the degree of cultural and ethical and mystical and religious and political concepts which influence their behavior that it isn’t widely fruitful to think about them just as if they were another animal. I think that what Ed Wilson has done for us by introducing the term ‘sociobiology’ is to make it harder to think clearly about human behavior. And I suppose I’m showing another aspect of my upbringing. I was a young man when Hitler was in power, I was in Berlin in 1938 just leading up to the Munich Settlement, and the whole of my thinking about the world has been much influenced by belonging to that generation. For me, the application of biology to human beings means Rosenberg and the race theories, so I’m obviously a bit reluctant to get involved in biological applications to human behavior. "Making it formal” interview with Maynard Smith in Lewis Wolpert and Alison Richards, A Passion for Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 132-133. | ” |
In Maynard Smith's moderately critical review of E. O. Wilson's On Human Nature, he expresses his general skepticism, while displaying some openness to certain cases:
“ | To me, the most interesting question is how far evolutionary biology can contribute to the human sciences. As I have explained, I am a doubter. But I have been wrong on this issue before. Ten years ago I regarded incest avoidance as an entirely cultural phenomenon; only a bigot could hold this view now. "Contraints on Human Behavior" republished in Did Darwin Get it Right? 1989, p. 85. | ” |
In 1985 Philip Kitcher wrote—according to Maynard Smith—an "admirable book," called Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, which was a technical critique of current sociobiological arguments for human behavior. Part of Kitcher's critique was to divide the field into two styles or spheres; first, those who argue as E.O. Wilson do (which is to say, naively), and second, those who argue with more rigor, as Richard Alexander, relying on testable relationships of human behavior and inclusive fitness. Referring to the latter form, Maynard Smith writes: "Unlike Wilson's arguments, which seem to me generally ill-formulated and empty of content, this claim is worth taking seriously, even though it is probably false." And to reiterate the point again: "This school of sociobiologists do say things about real societies that are testable; I find it hard to believe that they are right, but at least they are not vacuous." ("Biology and the Behavior of Man" ibid. p. 92). And finally this video clip from the Peoples Archive is rather interesting.
Even Dennett has expressed criticism of human sociobiology, calling it a form of "greedy reductionism," but has also expressed sympathy towards the explanations proposed by evolutionary psychology. Intern, Gould himself has expressed strong support for the sociobiological explanations of altruism proposed by Robert Trivers. Clearly the issue is more complicated than the article implies, but when introducing difficult subjects it is convenient sometimes to set up a controversy in a dialectical way. Miguel Chavez 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Did Gould get a degree as a science historian? If not, why is he listed as a science historian?
If he never got a degree as a science historian, does this blurb in the article justify the title "historian of science" :
Travb ( talk) 02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph about the reception of this book doesn't explain why there were different viewpoints, and the only reference for the comments is a link that doesn't work. -- Parkwells ( talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph: 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. ... as I beleive it was incorrectly interpreted by the previous editor. Gould is not talking about sociobiology as applied to humans - the word was originally used to mean all studies of animal social behaviour, and this is the definition that had currency in 1980. Also, he doesn't mean "altruism" the way a Wikipedia reader would understand it. He means "altruism" in the context of eusocial animals like bees and ants - it has a very different definition and meaning. Dissembly ( talk) 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Project Steve get some tiny mention in this article? (If it is there, I couldn't find it while looking for information on the project) Huw Powell ( talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it not blindingly obvious to all that the lead section of this article is too short by a country mile? And yes, that is part of the GA criteria. Please, somebody expand it to meet the requirements of WP:LS so as to avoid having it delisted.
I also note that a familiar someone has noted this in the to-do list already, yet it still seems to have escaped everyones' notice. It seems no amount of effort I make is making people more aware of the requirements of lead sections (or the GA requirements). Richard001 ( talk) 07:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
zxvsdbdbc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.99.249 ( talk) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
What does this even mean?
I see how the first sentence downplays sociobiology's importance by saying "No, sorry, some biological components of our psychology are strongly influenced by constraints, so you're theory can't fully handle such components". Yes, that makes sense but it doesn't "undermine an essential premise" does it? Do relativity & quantum mechanics "undermine" one another?
I'm afraid the second sentence doesn't make much sense period. Gould certainly knew that some aspects of cognition were "selected for."
Well, I'm afraid the whole section sounds like OR currently. Can we just quote his own words? I mean, he's got plenty of word on the subject! 67.85.188.249 ( talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
"...all biological traits as things that had been naturally selected for specifically." Specifically what? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
He is listed under both Jewish Atheists and Jewish Agnostics. Someone have the RS? 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that you can be both, considering if you were agnostic, why would you be atheist? I always thought as agnosticism (being one myself) as just saying I don't know, and nor does anyone. 72.199.100.223 ( talk) 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note discussion to move nonoverlapping magesteria at Talk:Non-overlapping magisteria#Move?. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The tone of this article is generally defensive. It cites critics, but tries then to defend Gould in a partisan fashion. For example, it cites Maynard Smith's critical remarks, and then mentions earlier occasions when Maynard Smith was laudatory (which to my mind is irrelevant to the criticisms made in the article in MS's review of Dennett). It would be a lot better to take a more distanced approach. It should be acknowledged that Gould did raise the ire of many evolutionary biologists for the good reason that his presentation of their views was often quite polemical and scientifically biased. Of course, this doesn't mean that Gould was not an eminent scientist who made real contributions. What it means is that he wasn't a cool-headed and fair critic of positions opposed to his own. Philonous2 ( talk) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Philonous 2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philonous2 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The exercise of classifying a scientific idea as either a hypothesis or theory is somewhat subjective, and relies on varying understandings of the two terms. What generally makes a scientific theory indeed a theory at all are two principal things. One, that it is a broad explanation which incorporates other hypotheses to explain a series of observations. And second, that it has withstood critical testing and scrutiny, and thereby functions as a plausible explanation by professionals in the scientific community. [2] By such a definition punctuated equilibrium surely meets the minimum requirement for a scientific theory.
While practitioners in the fields of paleontology and evolutionary biology use both terms to describe the model of evolution proposed by Eldredge and Gould, the term most often used in the professional literature today is the word "theory."
Notable evolutionists who favor the word theory include Ernst Mayr, [3] who was among the greatest evolutionists of the 20th century. And although Mayr began as a critic of punctuated equilibrium, he became a strong devotee as time went on. [4] The eminent evolutionist John Maynard Smith disagreed with Gould about the tempo of evolution, but he nevertheless saw fit to describe PE as a theory, [5] which if true was saying something very significant about the character of evolutionary change. Richard Dawkins—perhaps the best known evolutionist today—devoted an entire chapter to PE in his book The Blind Watchmaker, and while critical, designates PE with the word "theory," in this book [6] and others. [7] [8] [9] Philosopher of biology, and outspoken critic of Gould, Michael Ruse also describes PE not only as a theory [10] [11] but a genuine scientific paradigm. [12] [13] Mark Ridley, another critic of Gould and former student of Richard Dawkins, wrote a definitive textbook on evolution titled Evolution. Throughout the text Ridley also prefers to use the word theory. [14] Other prominent scientists include George C. Williams, [15] G. Ledyard Stebbins, [16] Michael T. Ghiselin, [17] Francisco J. Ayala, [18] Richard Lewontin, [19] Richard Levins, [20] Steven Rose, [21] Sean B. Carroll, [22] Steven Pinker, [23] Norman D. Newell, [24] Jerry Coyne, [25] Brian Charlesworth, [26] William Provine, [27] John Turner, [28] Stuart Kauffman, [29] paleoanthropologists such as C. Loring Brace, [30] Richard Leakey, [31] Tim White, [32] Ian Tattersall, [33] and historians of science Peter J. Bowler, [34] Frank Sulloway, [35] Michael Shermer, [36] and Frank Rhodes. [37] Then of course there are the numerous writings of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]
After the publication of Eldredge and Gould's 1972 paper, numerous paleontologists sought to investigate their claims, and have contributed greatly to the understanding of evolutionary tempo. Paleontologists who describe PE as a theory rather than hypothesis include
David Raup,
[49] David Sepkoski,
[50]
Richard Fortey,
[51]
Peter Ward,
[52] J. William Schopf,
[53]
Robert L. Carroll
[54]
Elisabeth Vrba,
[55] Donald Prothero,
[56]
Tim Flannery,
[57]
Douglas Erwin,
[58]
[59] Warren D. Allmon,
[60]
Robert T. Bakker,
[61]
John R. Horner,
[62] Michael McKinney,
[63] Bruce Lieberman,
[64]
Mark McMenamin,
[65] Patricia Princehouse,
[66] David Fastovsky,
[67] John Huss,
[68] Richard Bambach,
[69] Anthony Hallam,
[70] Arthur Boucot,
[71] John Alroy,
[72] David Norman,
[73] D. B. Lazarus,
[74] Richard Kerr,
[75] and many, many others.
[76]
[77]
[78]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[79]
To justify the preference for the designation "hypothesis" we our provided with Douglas Futuyma's principle textbook Evolutionary Biology. While both Futuyma and his textbook are very well respected in the field of evolutionary biology, Futuyma's practice of dubbing punctuated equilibrium a hypothesis is: first, unrepresentative of most biologists; second, frequently inconsistent; [80] and third a reflection of Futuyma's conservative employment of the word theory. For example, in his book Science on Trial Futuyma goes as far as to say, "Every scientific claim is a hypothesis, however well supported it may be." [81] This point is further elaborated upon in the opening pages of his textbook Evolutionary Biology. There he states his preference to restrict his use of the word "theory" to describe a "complex of statements" which are composed of a large "body of hypotheses" which "does not stand or fall on the basis of a single critical test." [82] Futuyma thereby limits the word theory to such things as "atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of plate tectonics," but not others theories like allopatric speciation, the idea that hemoglobin carries oxygen in our blood, or the "hypothesis that smoking causes cancer." [82] Futuyma also makes a distinction between the "pattern of punctuated equilibrium" and the "hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium." The pattern represents the empirics of the theory, and hypothesis represents the causal agency. Yet in other places he uses the word "theory" to identify the whole structure of punctuated equilibrium. [80] [83] With these facts in mind, Futuyma should hardly be considered the definitive word on the matter.
The words: tempo, mode, pattern, model, hypothesis, theory, thesis, idea, concept, and paradigm have all been used to describe punctuated equilibrium in the literature (and they are often used interchangeably).
[84]
[85]
[86] In fact Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge made it a point to use the more neutral word "picture" in their 1972 paper to avoid what they called a "tedious debate" about what to label their new idea.
[87] However as they began to develop PE over the years you see a notable shift in their language. They switch to the word model,Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). and eventually move to the word theory.
Lastly, just as an experiment I ran the phrases "hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium" and "theory of punctuated equilibrium" through Google's digitized book search engine. The phrase with the word theory returned 2,080 results whereas the former only returned 119. The same pattern resulted using Google Scholar, with the word theory returning 1,010 results and the word hypothesis only returning 60.
Today it is obvious that the word theory dominates the professional literature with the highest relative frequency. As such it should be used in this article. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The sub-section Evolutionary Developmental Biology describes the process of heterochrony encompassing "two distinct processes" of pedomorphosis and terminal additions. This is a bit misleading. From what I've read in Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Gould builds upon Gavin de Beer's work with embryos which states that there are eight "morphological modes" of heterochrony: caenogenesis, adult variation, neoteny, hypermorphosis, deviation, retardation, reduction, and acceleration. Gould states that these can be reduced to only two processes: acceleration and retardation (Gould, 1977, pp. 222-223).
Gould defines pedomorphosis as a consequence of progenesis or neoteny, but terminal addition is defined as a mechanism of Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law, which is mostly considered today to be an obsolete theory. I think the article is confusing "terminal additions" with acceleration and retardation, but I may be misunderstanding a broader definition of the term if there is one. Consider revising. - Ano-User ( talk) 11:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
In the section on nonoverlapping magisteria, a controversy is introduced from the perspective of Richard Dawkins: that religion does not even merit a magisterium of its own. The other side of the controversy is not addressed: that the magisteria ought very much to overlap. Of course, I'm not talking about the magisterium of "religion," per se, but a movement toward the inclusion of "spirituality" in higher education is being led by Sherry Hoppe, Bruce Speck, Parker Palmer and the like. This philosophy suggests that science is more meaningful when couched in terms of its ethical and moral implications and these questions should be openly considered in classroom discussions where the empirical research is being presented. As long as the controversy was introduced in this article, perhaps we should include this perspective from the other end of the controversy's spectrum. Jesserjames ( talk) 04:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Under nationality it says "American". America is a very big continent. Therefore I wonder where in the American Continent was this connotation refering to? Or to say it better in which of all American countries was he born? Was he born in Cuba or in Argentina? Or perhaps he was born in the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enciclopedikt ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
In reviewing the archives, I was surprised to discover that the SPLC was qualified to evaluate the opinions of scientists and that their opinion could be used to exclude scientific commentary from this article. Now I am not qualified to evaluate the material that was under discussion, but I strongly doubt the qualifications of the SPLC on scientific material also. I enjoyed Gould as a popular writer of science, but I always felt that there was a certain "smarminess" and "contempt" under the surface. Shazaam! The "science" always supported his "politics" which he carefully never directly stated but you could always “feel” under the surface. Seki1949 ( talk) 07:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my contribs are perceived by 121a0012 as "adding unwelcome bias to the article" [4]. Obviously, that wasn't my intention, and I tried to choose my words very carefully. It is however, totally irrelevant whether my contribs are based on a "misunderstanding of punctuated equilibria" on my side, since I merely gave an account of the views of (renowned) other scientists (which is what we're supposed to do here at wikipedia). Please double check the material I added, it is all reliably sourced. In other words: your beef is not with me, but with Dawkins. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 06:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why there is no section about Gould's leftist politics? He was a member of the radical People's Scientists group, and had acknowledged the influence of his Marxist/communist parents, being a "red diaper baby," many times, including in particular that his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was in part due to the fact that he paid attention to his Marxism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.87.70 ( talk) 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that the "Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject", and I frankly don't understand the rationale... Could someone shed some light on this? Otherwise I'd delete the tag. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Although they are clearly not related, is it possible that he was named for Jay Gould? If anyone knows anything about this, it should be included in the article (not that SJG would have been thrilled with the connection). 76.106.149.108 ( talk) 17:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit. The quote from the Nature editorial is given undue weight here, and as I alluded to in my edit comment, is taken out of context. Klortho ( talk) 23:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
We have at Wikipedia no requirement to reflect all parts or the whole history of a scientific discussion. As such, it is not necessary to make a report of a full scientific debate. Wikipedia should reflect the consensus, and also other notable opinions, but we don't have to include the debate leading up to that state.
In this case, Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" was criticized in a paper. That paper was published in Nature, but with a bit of "Byers beware" from the Nature editors. If you read between the lines, Nature published the paper not because it was good, but because it was about time that somebody attempted to scrutinized Gould's work, and, on their own words, as "encouragement to scrutinize the celebrated while they are still alive." Ie, while he still could defend himself. The paper has subsequently also gotten criticism from other sources: [5], [6], [7]. It's clearly not a paper that is particularly well-received or notable. Adding to that, the paper only criticizes his analysis of Morton's skull measurement data, but none of the other parts of the book. When keeping all this in mind, it's clear that letting that paper take up the majority of the space under "The Mismeasure of Man" heading is giving this paper undue weight. I would suggest that you remove all mention of this paper from the article, as it gives it undue weight. Making a summary of the controversy is impossible, I think, but you could change the main article link to go directly to the "Reception" section for easy access. OpenFuture ( talk) 09:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |
I took some time to write that opinion and explain it carefully so it would not be confusing, and it is therefore maybe rather long. I do realize now that this apparently was a mistake. I apologize for that. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring all the silliness above... my take is that the material is well suited for that section and is not being presented with undue weight or bias, either. The entire Mismeasure debate, as far as it played out in journals, was by and large a good example of tempered scientific dispute, executed in the proper fora. There is no reason to omit the details here.-- Elmidae ( talk) 09:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
To me, the material in this edit is interesting and relevant. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 17:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have read much, though not all of the discussion here. In my opinion the Lewis-Nature section fairly summarizes the key points of the debate. Of course, much more could be said both in favor and (much) against the Lewis paper. The arguments are often quite technical and there is no space to detail them here. But as others have already stated, the section is already too long. I would like to see the section remain as it was. If anything is trimmed however it should be the two sentences on bias (which is interesting but not vital to the controversy). I believe the discussion of the Lewis paper should not be deleted, as it is (unfortunately) the most prominent discussion of Gould in the last decade, and has received much press. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 07:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to justify the inclusion of Friedrich Wilhelm Graf in this article. Graf is a fairly obscure German theologian, and his work does not intersect with the work of Gould, or the main body of literature apropos of Gould. Virtually all is work is published in German, and is inaccessible to most English speakers. Any reader familiar with Gould would also be quite puzzled why this obscure author is included (twice) in the main body of this article.
The editor who included Graf takes his claims at face value, at writes them up as if they were simply fact. These are Graf's opinions (and most of us will have to take this on faith, since they are published in German). Several times in Gould's career he did claim that creationism is a "uniquely American phenomenon." But is this editor justified in saying Gould's claim was "a significant error"? Do secondary sources agree that this is an "error"? Was it an error or accurate when the claim was made? [1] [2] And why is this error deemed "significant"? Other sources certainly echo Gould's thesis. [3] [4]
According to Graf, "In Germany, one in five considers the biblical myth to be true." This agrees with 2006 Michigan State University study, and a 2011 Ipsos poll. This is a sizable minority position, no doubt, but it remains a minority nonetheless. ( See graph for details.) I don't think the editor is therefore justified in claiming that Gould made a "a significant error." Gould did not claim that creationism did not exist among other Western nations. He did not claim it was not growing at some rate. Only that it was not a "phenomenon." He did not define what this meant, or suggest limits or ratios. Although contemporary polling suggest Gould was probably right.
Furthermore, I think the editor subtlety misrepresents Graf's claim. In the one English source we are provided, Graf argues that the "religio-cultural movement" is growing—creationism being only a single facet of this movement. And even if this is true, it does not imply that creationism itself has grown to become a "phenomenon" among Western nations outside the US. If Graf's opinions about creationism are to be included in an article about Gould, the editor should try to keep the language more neutral and stick to what the original sources say. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 01:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I often see Gould described, without qualification, as "a Marxist". I think we need to state in the article exactly what type of supposed Marxist he was since this term has been used an abused by a wide array of people (particularly in Western Europe and North America). At the moment the article states that he was inspired by C. Wright Mills, which suggests a 1960s, "right on, man", New Left, revisionist American-campus Marijuanese-Marxism, rather than some sort of serious Marxist-Leninism (ie - anything going on in the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, China, etc). Do we have any decent reference material which lays out specifically what his point of view was? Claíomh Solais ( talk) 10:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
As discussed at
Talk:Scientific racism#New study noticed in Ars "Ouellette, Jennifer (4 October 2018).
"There's new evidence confirming bias of the "father of scientific racism"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 7 October 2018. {{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) – so that's a potential secondary source . . .
dave souza,
talk
18:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)"
User User:2601:43:101:75a0:94ee:e0c2:f9f3:ac9afo has included the following edit to the The Mismeasure of Man section: "Anthropologist Paul Wolff Mitchell published an analysis of Morton's original, unpublished data, which neither Gould nor subsequent commentators had directly addressed, and concluded that while Gould's specific argument about Morton's unconscious bias in measurement is not supported upon closer examination, it was true, as Gould had claimed, that Morton's racial biases influenced how he reported and interpreted his measurements." [1]
Previously this was perceived as extraneous material which lends undue weight to subject that is already covered disproportionately in comparison to other aspects of Gould's professional work. The article is also written by an anthropology PhD candidate. Discussion on whether this should remain, be removed, or be limited to a citation would be welcome. Cesaravi ( talk) 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
References
There appears to be a great contrast between Gould's reputation as the science popularizer known to the general public and the opinion of his professional colleagues who thought that most of his ideas were outright wrong.A few critical quotations can be found on this page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 ( talk) 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Yesi10garcia.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This page may need a little more research. Footnote 11 does not support "Bayside," and PS 26 is in Fresh Meadows (supported by fn 12). I was told by a neighbor of his that he did live in Fresh Meadows, but that's worthless information here. Danchall ( talk) 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Link 29 redirects to an Indian gambling website, not the purported article by Gould itself (which is quoted in the sentence anchored by Reference 29). 60.84.72.212 ( talk) 02:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)