Have to agree, in some ways he helped drive the discussion to greater depth -- many questions aren't easy to answer and Gould didn't want to entertain them. I p

Have to agree, in some ways he helped drive the discussion to greater depth -- many questions aren't easy to answer and Gould didn't want to entertain them. I particularly liked Sacks vignette on patterns from migraines, revisited here: https://migraine.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/patterns/ https://migraine.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/patterns/ Sheldrake's discussion on magnetoreception was also of value; it wasn't perfectly accurate (nor as well understood then as it is today) but Gould was arbitrarily dismissive; see more on the really cool phenomena here: https://www.sciencealert.com/birds-see-magnetic-fields-cryptochrome-cry4-photoreceptor-2018 https://www.sciencealert.com/birds-see-magnetic-fields-crypt... Einstein said it well: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."