Talk: Stephen Jay Gould
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
It's not clear that Gould was a "radical socialist", IMO. His parents were Communists and he knew and appreciated Marx, but as far as I know he was never a member of any socialist group. And of course, he was involved in anti-racist activism and (somewhat peripherally, I think) with Science for the People. But in Reinventing Darwin, Niles Eldredge says that Gould wasn't a Marxist. And when asked about his politics in a Skeptic interview, Gould said only that he preferred Clinton to Dole. He also wrote at least one mild defense of GM foods.
Commentary on Gould:
- Biologist John Maynard Smith has claimed that "Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by nonbiologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists." He also claimed Gould "is giving nonbiologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory." (Both quotes appear in Robert Wright's essay The Accidental Creationist).
Summary of some points made (click "View Other Revisions" to see details of this discussion):
- John Maynard Smith is is a biologist and not a popular science writer.
- Gould's work may not be solidly in the biological mainstream, but it's still generally within the purview of legitimate science.
- Robert Wright may be likelier to be the fringe figure here, not Stephen Jay Gould. A quick assay of Mr. Wright's work on the Web shows his positions lie on fairly shakey ground. For instance, he criticizes Gould for neglecting to notice that there is a general trend from simplicity to complexity in evolution, but this is a trend that is not there and not taken as a mainstream position.
- The power of historical contingency is a major theme in Gould's popular writing, and his most famous professional work (punctuated equilibrium) too. He's the last person I'd have suspected of being tied to historical determinism.
- Richard Lewontin was the chairman of Gould's department at Harvard, and made the claim, "There is nothing in Marx, Lenin, or Mao that is or can be in contradiction with a particular set of phenomena in the objective world." This may mean that Lewontin views science and ideology as separate domains, or perhaps mean that science that seems to contradict Marx, Lenin, or Mao is necessarily wrong.
- Gould once used Lewontin's comment in a metaphorical talk on punctuated equilibrium many years ago, which made some view him as sharing Lewontin's political beliefs. However, Gould has commented that punctuated equilibrium was more Niles' idea than his. Niles has a different political background than Gould, so with regards to punctuated equilibrium, Gould's politics may in fact be completely irrelevant anyway.
- Gould has been heavily involved in heated debates regarding sociobiology, and has a firm stance in the "anti" camp. Some have bashed Gould, claiming this "jihad" to be wrong and suggesting that Gould must be tainted by communist beliefs for taking the positions he has.
It seems to me that some of this would be good to place in the main article--how about that, some actual useful content coming out of mere dialectical wrangling... :-) --LMS
The second to last point is inaccurate. Suspicions that Gould's scienctific opinions are influenced by his politics arise in regards to his views on sociobiology, not punctuated equilibrium.
re: baseball: actually, an entire book of his essays on baseball has just been published.
- he was to some degree an admirer of Marxism, although he was by no means a communist
Should be reworded. 'Communist' is horribly ambiguous (Stalinist? Leninist? Marxist?). Maybe to something like:
Depending on the interpretation of the adjective 'communist', its inclusion becomes either redundant or unnecessary. Sir Paul 23:11, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
A quote from Gould illustrating his political views would provide bones for this rather flabby assertion. Not every progressive liberal humanist realist is a "Marxist"!
Some additional comments from a molecular evolutionist (JH Badger, read my papers in Journal of molecular evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, etc.)
The idea that "evolutionary biologists" as a group disrepected Gould is simply false. Of course partisians of sociobiology were not fans of Gould, as he harshly criticized their movement. But the vast majority of evolutionary biologists these days have no interest whatsoever in the sociobiological debate, which is far more prominent in the popular scientific literature than it is in serious scientific literature.
In addition, it's worth understanding that the forefront of evolution, like the rest of biology, is strongly molecular, and molecular evolutionists have long established that while natural selection is an important source of evolution, the majority of differences between species at a molecular level are not due to natural selection, but to other sources such as mutational bias and drift. Thus, Gould certainly was correct to question the degree of natural selection at higher levels as well.
Q: is Gould's name taken from Jay Gould, the robber baron? -Litefantastic 18:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Badger, does somebody somewhere actually give you a publicly funded tenure to write this Gouldian-style sophistry? After reading carefully through your paragraph, I have concluded that you have honestly said almost nothing at all and what you have said timidly plays with the ashes of Lysenko affectionately, much like Gould himself. Do they have a club where all of you wildly gesturing, gammy-eyed poseurs practice this stuff quietly to launch on an unsuspecting public when it is sufficiently polished? Sir, it is gibberish.
