4 ms·

Beware of Stephen J. Gould

36 points by MikeCapone 18y ago

joubert 18y ago
Dawkins has excellent discussions in his books on areas where Gould is off track.
swombat 18y ago
Great write-up, as always. As a non-biologist, this sort of information is helpful. Would it be slander to publish and market a book and website debunking Stephen J Gould directly?
- tokenadult 18y ago
  The law of defamation (general term that includes libel and slander) is that truth is a defense. So write what is true. But I didn't think the dots were very well connected in the submitted post to show what Gould actually did that was clearly wrong.
  - MikeCapone 18y ago
    "But I didn't think the dots were very well connected in the submitted post to show what Gould actually did that was clearly wrong." Eliezer, the author, reads this site. Could you elaborate?
    - programnature 18y ago
      The post's logic goes like this: Evolutionary Biology originally has mistaken idea X. Person A corrects idea X with a more sophisticated idea Y. 30 years later, Gould corrects idea X with idea Z. The crime Gould is accused of is in arguing for his idea Z while ignoring the earlier idea Y. By the way, the earlier idea Y is pretty fatally flawed in the first place. It is based on the idea that the size/length/information content of a program is the same thing as the complexity of the program's behavior, which we now know is totally false. So its amusing that the author is so rabid in its defense.
      - derefr 18y ago
        with everything the author has previously said on information complexity (it's all over his posts) he's very likely aware of this. I think he wasn't saying that ignoring idea Y was immoral in and of itself, so much as that, without establising the existance of idea Y, idea Y'''' (that we believe today) can't be obviously developed, making it look like there's "room" for his idea Z.
- parenthesis 18y ago
  One can't slander the dead, I thought, and Gould died in 2002.
scott_s 18y ago
"But there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying." Wanted to point out this gem.
adamc 18y ago
True as far as it goes (got my doctorate on this stuff), but I think he misses the huge influence Gould had on getting folks interested. Yes, he was misleading about some things (although he may well have believed what he wrote), but I think he had a large positive influence as well.
- nsrivast 18y ago
  Huge! Things like clade selection and spandrels may not be ultimately correct, but they're fascinating to think about.
Angostura 18y ago
I remember reading Wonderful Life when it first came out, and thinking "If this guy weren't well respected, I'd think he is a kook". It's nice to not always be wrong.
programnature 18y ago
This is a rant based on scientific politics, and I am willing to bet there is more motivation here than the author is letting on. Its telling that the supposed 'intellectual property violation' is not something that Gould is even known for (look at the wikipedia page if you want to know what theories are associated with him). And in any case, presenting a scientific field as big as evolutionary biology as monolithic is either naive or intentionally exclusionary contradictory viewpoints.
nice1 18y ago
I say it would be very silly to form an opinion of S.J.Gould based on this rant. He was a remarkable person who did a lot to popularize evolutionary ideas and as such will aways be the target of attack, even by other scientists. If you want to have an informed opinion go and read his wonderful books, it is time well spent.
ellyagg 18y ago
Good. I always thought punctuated equilibrium was a load of tripe.
jacquesm 18y ago
I don't like the personal attack on Stephen J. Gould, in general I think you should be skeptical about what people are telling you and the onus is on you, the consumer of the information to verify its truth. Gould was wrong about some things, and right about others. This is a crime of which many scientists are guilty, Gould is no exception. I have no dog in this fight because I'm not active in that particular field but I personally hope they'll remember the man for the work that he did and that he will be forgiven for his mistaken views. Science politics changes on death at the time...

36 points by MikeCapone 18y ago

Dawkins has excellent discussions in his books on areas where Gould is off track.

Great write-up, as always. As a non-biologist, this sort of information is helpful. Would it be slander to publish and market a book and website debunking Stephen J Gould directly?

tokenadult 18y ago
The law of defamation (general term that includes libel and slander) is that truth is a defense. So write what is true. But I didn't think the dots were very well connected in the submitted post to show what Gould actually did that was clearly wrong.
- MikeCapone 18y ago
  "But I didn't think the dots were very well connected in the submitted post to show what Gould actually did that was clearly wrong." Eliezer, the author, reads this site. Could you elaborate?
  - programnature 18y ago
    The post's logic goes like this: Evolutionary Biology originally has mistaken idea X. Person A corrects idea X with a more sophisticated idea Y. 30 years later, Gould corrects idea X with idea Z. The crime Gould is accused of is in arguing for his idea Z while ignoring the earlier idea Y. By the way, the earlier idea Y is pretty fatally flawed in the first place. It is based on the idea that the size/length/information content of a program is the same thing as the complexity of the program's behavior, which we now know is totally false. So its amusing that the author is so rabid in its defense.
    - derefr 18y ago
      with everything the author has previously said on information complexity (it's all over his posts) he's very likely aware of this. I think he wasn't saying that ignoring idea Y was immoral in and of itself, so much as that, without establising the existance of idea Y, idea Y'''' (that we believe today) can't be obviously developed, making it look like there's "room" for his idea Z.
parenthesis 18y ago
One can't slander the dead, I thought, and Gould died in 2002.

scott_s 18y ago

"But there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying." Wanted to point out this gem.

adamc 18y ago

True as far as it goes (got my doctorate on this stuff), but I think he misses the huge influence Gould had on getting folks interested. Yes, he was misleading about some things (although he may well have believed what he wrote), but I think he had a large positive influence as well.

nsrivast 18y ago
Huge! Things like clade selection and spandrels may not be ultimately correct, but they're fascinating to think about.

Angostura 18y ago

I remember reading Wonderful Life when it first came out, and thinking "If this guy weren't well respected, I'd think he is a kook". It's nice to not always be wrong.

programnature 18y ago

This is a rant based on scientific politics, and I am willing to bet there is more motivation here than the author is letting on. Its telling that the supposed 'intellectual property violation' is not something that Gould is even known for (look at the wikipedia page if you want to know what theories are associated with him). And in any case, presenting a scientific field as big as evolutionary biology as monolithic is either naive or intentionally exclusionary contradictory viewpoints.

nice1 18y ago

I say it would be very silly to form an opinion of S.J.Gould based on this rant. He was a remarkable person who did a lot to popularize evolutionary ideas and as such will aways be the target of attack, even by other scientists. If you want to have an informed opinion go and read his wonderful books, it is time well spent.

ellyagg 18y ago

Good. I always thought punctuated equilibrium was a load of tripe.

jacquesm 18y ago

I don't like the personal attack on Stephen J. Gould, in general I think you should be skeptical about what people are telling you and the onus is on you, the consumer of the information to verify its truth. Gould was wrong about some things, and right about others. This is a crime of which many scientists are guilty, Gould is no exception. I have no dog in this fight because I'm not active in that particular field but I personally hope they'll remember the man for the work that he did and that he will be forgiven for his mistaken views. Science politics changes on death at the time...