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 removed the quotes because they were guilty of quote-mining. In specific, someone reading this quotes without being familiar with the totality of Gould's writing would be sure to get a mistaken impression of his views on evolution. For all the apparent controversy, Gould's view of evolution differed from that of mainstream biologists only in matters of emphasis and detail. In specific, he emphasized the "burstiness" and "contingency", while failing to understand certain details relevant to adaptation. In short, while he wasn't much of an evolutionary biologist, he still supported evolution (as he understood it). For these reasons, I removed the quotes. Thank you for understanding. Al 00:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting viewpoint. Can you give us an indication of your credentials to judge Gould's work? Or is this just your opinion as a layperson? Badgerpatrol 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia respects credentials? Why wasn't I informed?! Seriously, just read the whole article, and you'll see that my statements are already well-supported. Al 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Credentials, or not, he's right. And the "Famous Quotes" also suffer from the fact that they're not famous. - Nunh-huh 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the quotes, whether in or out—I do wonder however whether Gould could be fairly catagorised as 'not much of an evolutionary biologist'. I hope this kind of blatant POV doesn't find its way into the article proper. Badgerpatrol 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article, properly attributed to evolutionary biologists who are singularly unimpressed with Gould's grasp of evolution. Al 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah—so what you are saying is that disagreements between scientists over issues of theory should be taken as an indication of respective ability and scholarship? I think there are a few articles regarding scientists whose ideas were not universally welcomed or accepted by other scholars in their fields. We may have a lot of revising to do. Badgerpatrol 00:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify. These respected evolutionary biologists don't merely disagree with Gould, they argue that he has a weak grasp of the issues. It's quite possible to disagree with someone while respecting their scientific competence, but this is simply not the case here. Gould was a paleontologist who played at evolutionary biology. He came up with a minor, unimportant wrinkle to add to neo-Darwinism, but was arrogant enough to claim that it was a huge big deal. The one thing Gould really had going for him was his writing ability, which made him quite popular with unsuspecting laymen who didn't realize how clueless he was about evolution. Al 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Let's work together to ensure that this article reflects a fairly balanced mixture of plaudits and crticism. All the best, Badgerpatrol 00:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it already does. We're just editorializing here, not discussing changes. Al 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I often find myself "respectfully disagreeing" with people. After all, some issues are very complex, and I can understand how reasonable people can come to different conclusions. But sometimes you run across someone who is just so damn confident in the most absurd of opinions. And this is what I see here with Alianus (as well as many evolutionary psychologists, and also by Maynard Smith in what I consider a weak moment). Alianus, I would love to discuss just how Gould is so confused on the theoretical issues of evolutionary theory. Do you know why, or have you learned all your biology from Dennet? Let me say this, I don't very often disagree with Gould. And if he doesn't convince me on a certain point, I nevertheless find his analysis always insightful. When I do disagree I never find his understanding of the issues unreasonable, and certainly never confused. This I cannot say about his critics. I cannot tell you how many times I have seriously wondered if they had even read his papers (carefully, or if at all). Now I respect Danial Dennet. I like Dennet, and he's obviously a clever philosopher. But his grasp of evolutionary theory is hardly deep. And his interest in the subject is very partisan. This can be said about a fair number of Gould's critics as well, but not all. The attitude that Gould was "so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with" is among the STUPIDEST things I have ever read. On par with so-called "scientific creationism." And I don't think I'm being shrill here. Simply look at the literature, and I mean the technical stuff. Many persons have spent their precious academic time analyzing and testing the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould. This includes the best minds of evolutionary theory (including Ernst Mayr, and even John Maynard Smith). Gould did not get into Harvard, or the National Academies because of his literary wit, or charming nature. For the sake of personal honesty, he deserves some [expletive] respect. In any case, I look forward to an interesting, and possibly exciting debate. Best Miguel Chavez 08:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dennett, for all his knowledge of biology, is a philosopher. However, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and has been quite critical of Gould. The problem is that Gould is a paleontologist, which gives him a twisted view of evolution. In particular, it downplays adaptation and emphasizes the role of chance, which is precisely the view that Gould puts forth. Likewise, for whatever reason, Gould has committed himself to high-level selection, which is something that is very hard to defend. These are just two areas where Gould is out of touch with mainstream biology. The deeper problems come from his political actions, and here I am not talking about communism. Consider his nonoverlapping magesteria, which is a rearguard action in which he cedes all of ethics to religion in the doomed hope that religion will cede biology in return. This is bad politics and has played right into the hands of Creationists. Al 16:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed. And I will even agree with you here. Gould, because he was a paleontologist, emphasized structural morphology over functional anatomy. This is true. Clearly, anyone dealing with fossils cannot appreciate the intricate adaptations like an ethologist can, such as Dawkins. But this dilemma goes both ways. Dawkins—somewhat understandably—is far too preoccupied with adaptation, because that's all he sees (and all he cares about). Nor does Dawkins appreciate laws of growth, governed by both developmental and genetic constraint. Now this is an important, even essential factor in understanding how evolution works. You cannot claim to understand evolution if you cannot appreciate constraint. It is as important as understanding the nature of variation. For obvious reasons. And Dawkins and Dennet don't seem to care, or prefer to imagine it doesn't exist. That being said, it is one thing to say Gould didn't appreciate adaptation (fine), but it is quite another to say he didn't understand it.

To Gould's advantage, as a paleontologist, he was able to see how evolution shaped larger trends in the long haul. Most importantly, the phenomenology of stasis, with all its interesting implications for understanding homeostasis, adaptation, and higher level sorting patterns.

As for hierarchical selection, I would say it is hard to define at times, but it is even harder to deny. From my reading this seems to be the direction everyone is going (or at least giving lip service to). The problem is the logic of the theory clearly flows from that data, but it is stubbornly difficult (but clearly not impossible) to test. And it is being tested. I suppose I should make a tally, pro and con, to see where most evolutionists stand on the matter. But Gould's adoption of this view is hardly inexplicable. At this moment Mayr and Jablonski come to mind. We'll tackle the religious stuff later. Best, Miguel Chavez 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any biologist denies that natural selection must occur from among physically possible alternatives. In other words, there are indeed architectural and developmental constraints, which is why (for example) it's quite unlikely for a single-horned equine to evolve naturally. However, Dawkins and Dennett focus on adaptation because they consider it to be the more important aspect of evolution, being the part that apparently mimics conscious design. So, to an extent, their disagreement with Gould is more a matter of emphasis than content.

In the same way, the Darwinian gradualism that Gould's punctuated equilibrium seeks to amend is not being overthrown and replaced with genuine saltationism, just alternating periods of slower or quicker -- but still gradual and continuous -- change. Here, Gould so strongly emphasized his differences from traditional evolution that he has unwittingly mislead people into thinking that he has replaced, rather than supplemented, it. In fact, a number of Creationists have latched onto this as evidence that evolution is false or that biologists can't get their act together and are providing a united front to hide their internal incoherence.

As for higher level selection, Dawkins levels some rather strong arguments against it in The Selfish Gene. So far, the only way group selection has been shown to exist is in a way that is a direct extension of genetic selection, not opposed to it.

The overall pattern is that Gould has a tendency to overstate the distinctiveness of his approach and inflate differences, in a way that does not serve the truth. Al 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Some would suggest instead that the overall pattern is that non-scientists misinterpret his work and inflate differences in a way that does not serve the truth. I hardly see how it can be Gould's fault that creationists misuse his work in order to support their position. Of course there is debate in science, and of course scientists disagree. The reason why the creationist micro-minority interpret these as being weaknesses is because they have little or no understanding of the field or how science works. To state again; Gould may or may not have been wrong, but being wrong is not the same as being a bad scientist. Badgerpatrol 23:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course few biologists deny that constraint plays a role in channeling evolution. That was never Gould and Lewontin's point. The real issue was of emphasis and degree (p. 585). When reading Dawkins (but also the evolutionary psychologists) it is rare to find constraint mentioned, utilized, or considered at all. And if constraint is as powerful as we generally concede it is, then this poses a problem. Yes (when pressed) they cite G. C. Williams, and even Charles Darwin, on the limits of adaptation. But if constraint plays no role in your day-to-day biology, then you might as well say it doesn't exist. It's all just lip-service. That's why their 1979 paper is frequently praised. Even though it had all been said before, it really hadn't been said so forcefully and brilliantly. Ernst Mayr wrote a paper called "How to carry out the adaptationist program?" which perfectly summarizes the pros and cons of both approaches. Elliot Sober's The Nature of Selection is also a classic. That being said, Gould had been among the largest and most influential thinkers in the study of adaptation. He hardly had a "weak grasp of the issues," as you described. If people misinterpreted Gould, or misperceived that he had inflated the importance of his ideas, then that is the fault of the reader (and the press), not Mr. Gould. My personal criticism of Gould was that his skepticism, though welcome, was unnecessarily too strong. In any case, I would love to see the phantom quotation where Gould claims he has discovered something revolutionary. I can easily show you evidence to the contrary. As for group selection, the hierarchical viewpoint shares only a superficial resemblance, and serves more as a passive (but powerfully discriminating) filter. Group selection is still in, but plays a negligible role. All the best, Miguel Chavez 00:29, 27 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)

As it turns out, I was editorializing, not writing an article. If I were doing the latter, I'd offer citations and such. Since I'm not, I'll just direct you to the Gould chapter in Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett, for a taste of what's wrong with Gould. Al 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any unbiased sources? Or at least less biased? (The chapter in the Structure I referred to above runs through a litany of Dennett's misstatements [per Gould] in that book about Gould and punctuated equilibrium.) I'd love to see some sort of literature review by someone with no obvious axe to grind—but axes seem to be in plentiful supply among students of evolutionary theory. (That would also be a nice thing to have in the Mismeasure of Man context—the arguments between Gould and Eysenck et al seem to be very similar in form to the arguments between Gould and Dennett, right down to the point where they dissolve into argumentum ad hominem.) That's one of the reasons why reference to the primary sources is so crucial in resolving these "did not!", "did too!" sorts of arguments. If we illustrate this article with a quotation from a detractor saying "Gould says X about Y" when Gould does not in fact say X (or did say X but was talking about Z and not Y), then readers ought to know that, just as they should know if a quotation from Gould misrepresents what someone else has said. (By preference we should not use such quotations at all, except to illustrate the controversies Gould has been involved in.) 121a0012 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider Dennett biased on this matter. Al 06:15, 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)

As most evolution has occured in the past, evolutionary biology certainly has a tendency to speak more about how things got here than how they are today. Having said that, evolution is not a theory about the past, but rather the explanation for ongoing changes. Evolutionary biology, for example, tells us what actions would serve to avoid encouraging antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Dennett is, as you say, a philosopher and not a scientist. However, he is quite unusual among philosophers in his respect for and extensive knowledge of science, as well as his close relationship with renowned scientists such as Dawkins and Pinker. Moreover, Dennett is an expert on evolution, particularly from the perspective of its overall philosophical implications in addition to its biological ones. Politically, he is moderately leftist, but not Marxist. In short, I would say he is uniquely qualified to debate Gould, and if you read the book I recommended, you'll see that, to be quite frank, he tore Gould a new asshole.

Gould's ideas were not radical or dangerous, but Gould made them out to be so in an attempt to turn a minor wrinkle on evolution into a big hairy deal, thus boosting his fame. To the extent that his ideas were major, they were wrong. To the extent that they were right, they were minor.

Having said all this, I'm all for a clear explanation of Gould's ideas. But let's not give them more value than the scientific and philosophical community does. It would be a violation of undue weight. Al 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As always, the article should reflect a fair and balanced view of Gould and his ideas. A fair and balanced view is going to contain a lot more positives than negatives. Like all scientists with anything worthwhile to say, Gould had both supporters and detractors. All I can say regarding the scientific community's reception of Gould's ideas is that, as one would expect, not everyone agrees. But as a stimulatory source of debate and research, I can think of few scientists in the field whose ideas can be said to have had had such an impact, at least since the synthesis anyway. It is one thing saying that a person's ideas are wrong or that one does not agree with them; it is quite another to say that they are ill-thought out or unscholarly. Very few scientists in the field subscribe to the latter view with regard to Gould's work. Badgerpatrol 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully. Alienus correctly describes the attitudes of some biologists and philosophers, especially those associated with EP about which Gould, along with many others was acidic in his criticism (see "Alas Poor Darwin" for a collection of essays from a variety of biologists and philopsophers on the inadequacies of EP). Gould particularly attached the ideas and foundations of EP and rarely stooped to criticism of individuals except under extreme provocation. However I do not think that this view of Gould is a common one amongst biologists generally, it's certainly not mine or any of my colleagues that I know; if it's common it's certainly not a dominant view. Although Dawkins is held in huge respect, his views are probably subject to even more specific criticism over detail from molecular biologists than Gould's, and on balance, Gould's are probably more in tune with developmental molecular biology. Biology is a broad church; there are many shades of opinion within it, and those shades reflect the different importance that different biologists attach to different areas of evidence. And as for Dennett's book, I certainly would never comment on anything I hadn't read myself. The view I expressed above is mine.

Opinions are transient and arguable things, and the opinions that people hold change over time and their meaning depends so much upon context. Keep to the ideas and criticisms of the ideas; the criticisms themselves should be explained, not left as mere summary judgements of questionable authorities—and all authorities are questionable here. I dislike the EP quote here not because it's a crticism of Gould's ideas but because it's not, it's merely a nasty and vacuous piece of bitching that I hope in a gentler mmment they'd be ashamed of. I feel embarrassed for the authors that it's repeated here. Gleng 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you think the quotes and paraphrases are unrepresentatively critical of Gould, a good way of handling it would be to add some quotes that are more positive, if you can dig them up. Al 16:40, 20 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":

1. Darwinian natural selection, defined as the differential survival of those entities better or worse suited to their environments, operates at multiple levels in the biological hierarchy: at the lowest level among genes all the way up to clades. Each level of this hierarchy constitutes an evolutionary individual when considered at its appropriate time scale. There are evolutionary pressures not only among individuals at the same level of the hierarchy, but also between levels; for example, success of a cell line in a complex organism may come at the ultimate cost of the organism's life (viz., cancer).
2. The story of macroevolution is the story of the birth and extinction of entire species, and can best be understood as the result of species selection.
3. The fossil record is not hopelessly incomplete, as Darwin and many neo-Darwinists suggest, but is in fact a true record of the course of evolution in geological time.
4. The dominant mode of macroevolution is characterized by species arriving with geological rapidity (that is, within a single bedding plane) and changing very little for a long period until their ultimate extinction. This is not an illusion caused by an inadequate fossil record (see above), nor is it an artifact of how paleontologists define species.
5. This mode of change is in fact a simple consequence of known microevolutionary mechanism when correctly extrapolated over geological time scales.
6. Not every feature of a biological system is adaptive; no organism is perfectly adapted. No matter how adaptive some conceivable feature may be, it may not be reachable for a variety of reasons. These constraints include the purely physical (birds would have an easier time flying if they could generate anti-gravity fields—but no such fields exist); the physico-mathematical (e.g., the square-cube law and other constraints on the sizes and shapes of organisms); the developmental (mammalian fetuses must be small enough to pass through their mothers' pelvises at birth); and the historical.
7. Historical constraint is the most significant form of constraint, and can result in a life history that is easy to misread as directional. The raw material of evolution is random variation; even assuming such variations are equiprobable, this process can only generate a finite number of varieties in a finite time. As a result, many adaptations which are not otherwise precluded simply do not appear because insufficient time has elapsed; objectively inferior adaptations may become entrenched simply because they were easier to reach by random variation from the base state, and once the selective pressure is reduced, so is the impetus for change ("the good is the enemy of the best"). This also explains the deep homologies observed in molecular biology and genome studies.
8. Not every feature of a biologial system is adaptive; some features are mere consequences of other features (which themselves may be adaptive or may be no more than historical baggage). (The canonical example is male nipples, explained as a consequence of the existence of female nipples, combined with the lack of any selective pressure which would cause them to be suppressed in the development of the male anatomy.) Sometimes, features which originally evolved for non-adaptive reasons may later be co-opted when the environment changes and that feature proves beneficial; the loci of selection and adaptation do not always coincide. (Such cases are referred to as exaptation.)

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:

I want to argue that the “sudden” appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it. ("Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution", Ever Since Darwin, 1977, p. 61)

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.” ("The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 182)

The theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed by Niles Eldredge and myself, is not, as so often misunderstood, a radical claim for truly sudden change, but a recognition that ordinary processes of speciation, properly conceived as glacially slow by the standard of our own life-span, do not resolve into geological time as long sequences of insensibly graded intermediates (the traditional, or gradualistic, view), but as geologically “sudden” origins at single bedding planes. (Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, 1987, pp. 2–3)

PE and species selection:

Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates. We live in a world of structure and legitimate distinction. Species are the units of nature's morphology. ("A Quahog is a Quahog", The Panda's Thumb, p. 213)

On constraint:

Organisms [...] are directed and limited by their past. They must remain imperfect in their form and function, and to that extent unpredictable since they are not optimal machines. ("Quick Lives and Quirky Changes", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 65)

A complete theory of evolution must acknowledge a balance between “external” forces of environment imposing selection for local adaptation and “internal” forces representing constraints of inheritance and development. ("A Hearing for Vavilov", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 144)

We do not inhabit a perfected world where natural selection ruthlessly scrutinizes all organic structures and then molds them for optimal utility. Organisms inherit a body form and a style of embryonic development; these impose constraints upon future change and adaptation. In many cases, evolutionary pathways reflect inherited patterns more than current environmental demands. These inheritances constrain, but they also provide opportunity. ("Hyena Myths and Realities", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 156)

When Bonner writes that “natural selection for optimal feeding is then presumed to be the cause of non-motility in all forms,” I can't help suspecting that some plants might do even better if they could walk from shade to sun—but the inherited constraints of design never permitted a trial of this intriguing option. ("The Ghost of Protagoras", An Urchin in the Storm, 1987, p. 67)

On the power of selection relative to other forces:

Our world is not an optimal place, fine tuned by omnipotent forces of selection. It is a quirky mass of imperfections, working well enough (often admirably); a jury-rigged set of adaptations built of curious parts made available by past histories in different contexts. ("Only His Wings Remained", The Flamingo's Smile, 1985, p. 54)

I can't help but include a few quotations on historiography:

When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents—a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless, completely disappeared from large sectors of the American experience. ("Non-Overlapping Magisteria", Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, 1998, p. 273

I can promise that, although I have frequently advanced wrong, or even stupid, arguments (in the light of later discoveries), at least I have never been lazy, and have never betrayed your trust by cutting corners or relying on superficial secondary sources. I have always based these essays upon original works in their original languages. (Preface, I Have Landed, 2002, p. 6)

[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)

I agree. While I like the Harvard style for my books, end notes are less obtrusive for digitized texts. The synthesis of styles is the result of an evolved article. I've seen it used in print, but its strengths definitely lie in texts which are heavily footnoted. This certainly isn't the case here. As for primary-sourced quotations in end notes, I certainly don't have a problem with this. This is common, and is an effective literary style. Sometimes you have to say something important, or interesting, or marginally relevant, but it just doesn't seem to flow right within the text. My .02 ¢ — Miguel Chavez 07:41, 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)

The influence of Gould's scientific papers is definitely top tier. His most cited paper (1613) according to ISI is "Spandrels of San-Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm." Another issue that's been raised that this doesn't necessarily respond to, though, is the claims along the lines of Maynard Smith's that Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory." Anyway, it seems we're looking at somewhat different results at ISI, as I see more citations for, e.g., Gould's other papers (2nd most cited is 966 for "Allometry and Size in Ontogeny and Phylogeny"), and Dawkin's most cited paper has 413. WD Hamilton seems to set the record in the area with 3770, but the comparatively low citation rate for Mayr would seem to underscore that this is, in the end, a limited measurement.-- Nectar 11:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; citation analysis is limited; my point was simply to provide verifiable evidence for the impact that Gould's scientific work has had. Obviously there are controversial elements in his views, and whether he has given biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory may or may not be the point; was he trying to give non-biologists a picture of the state of evolutionary theory or trying to explain his own views? In which case the criticism might be correct, but iss less than stinging. Gleng 12:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of interpretation. First, it appears that the criticism of Gould's scholarly works is mostly limited to his interactions with evolutionary genetics/biology. In paleo and anthro he appears to have been well received. So as a geneticst, my view of Gould is largely negative (in line with Maynard Smith's). A secondary point--the citation analysis would need to include books, where a lot of the action in this field has taken place. For example, Mayr's Animal Species and Evolution has 4000+ citations. -- Rikurzhen 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Gould is clearly among the most cited names in evolutionary biology, and he is the third most cited biologist in his professions flagship journal Paleobiology, behind only to Charles Darwin and G. G. Simpson. However citation analysis alone can be very misleading, but I do think it is helpful in many ways. Despite these problems, his numbers are quite impressive. David B. Wake, who was a fellow NAS member and expert on speciation, wrote a very compelling paper on this subject, titled "On the scientific legacy of Stephen Jay Gould". It seems the more I investigate this issue, the more I worry that I have conceded far too much to Gould's very vocal critics. — Miguel Chavez 08:09, 5 August 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)

Hello Oskart. The controversies surrounding Gould's work are simply not representative enough to be included in the general introduction. Contrary to the opinions of some wikipedians, Gould was well respected, and the controversies surrounding his work, when taken in totality, are too subtle and peripheral—mostly on issues related to one's preferred emphasis of adaptation—to be displayed so prominently (and worded so strongly). By making these disagreements into something more than they are, we risk suggesting that Gould was some sort of scientific pariah, which simply wasn't the case. (And I've heard numerous complaints on this issue.) No other scientist listed in wikipedia (and I have looked) is being subjected to the kind of negative treatment that is being displayed here. Richard Dawkins for example has a glowing introduction, even though he was not as respected as Gould, and is considerably more controversial. I think it's obvious that too much politics has crept in here and it's time we kept it in check. I would not even subject Richard to such polemical perversions. It is unfair to either gentleman. Best, Miguel Chavez 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholly with the above. Gould was influential across many areas of biological science for his academic work alone; influence includes provoking reactions, and in many ways the vocal reactions are a tribute to his influence and the wide respect he was accorded. Of his major disputes, the dispute over sociobiology is one where I think his was the majority scientific viewpoint; the controversy over IQ is an interesting case, and I suspect that among biologists generally the vote goes quite strongly with Gould; his case had flaws, but overall it was powerful, for all that it still has its proponents, IQ is now regarded as a deeply and fundamentally flawed concept by many. He wrote so well that many didn't credit the possibility that he could also be, in his own right, a major scientist and also a major historian of science. Gleng 15:57, 30 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 really don't follow your argument. Just because there is a section on "controversies" doesn't necessarily mean that it should be reflected in the introduction. There is also a section on Gould's personal life, as well as The Mismeasure of Man. Furthermore, no one is saying he wasn't controversial. Only that the paragraph on controversies should be placed (properly) in the controversies section. The introduction should be a concise snapshot of who the person was, and what he did. I was afraid that by focusing too much on the controversies we might give the impression that Gould was more radical than he truly was, and might possibly seed the impression that Gould's ideas were entirely unreasonable. It might surprise you to know that I actually wrote that paragraph you're so insistent on keeping up. I did so to reflect some of the strong sentiments shared by his very vocal critics, but written in a reasonable and tolerant way. However the more I scanned the articles on Wikipedia, the more I realized that Gould had really been singled out as a target, and that many more controversial scientists had much more respectful biographies (and like Dawkins, glowing introductions). The simple fact is this article focuses way too much on the politics of scientific debate, and not enough on the science. Gould touched on a lot of different topics in his scientific career—which, sadly, are not being discussed here. What about Gould's contributions to heterochrony, and evolutionary developmental biology, why is so little said about punctuated equilibrium and its development into elaborating macro level selection, as well as contributing to concepts like paleoecological stasis and species cohesion. What about his contributions to understanding phyletic diversity, adaptation, contingency, structuralism, allometry in growth, and deep homologies within genetic systems? If I had to take a guess, I would bet that the reason this article focuses so much on the controversies is that so much has been written about it in popular print, and that's all some people know. What is clear to me is that this article needs to be more nuanced, and reflect a more real picture of who Gould was, and what he meant to evolutionary theory. All this controversies stuff is bullshit (however entertaining it is to read about). Personally I don't care that much where that paragraph is. But I honestly think it goes better as an introduction to the controversies section, rather than as a closing for the general introduction. I'm up for letting it go for a vote, and to let it be decided by the strength of the arguments. Best, Miguel Chavez 02:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Oskart, I also agree that the subject of IQ is somewhat off topic, but I recommend that readers here take the time to read "Mainstream Science on Intelligence." [1] Particularly how "intelligence" (whithout doubt an extremely complex concept) is defined (in conclusion 1), and how it is broken down into almost absurdly reductionist terms (see conclusion 2). But what I found particularly welcome was conclusion 9, which states: "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes" which Gould would surely be sympathetic to. I would also recommend that readers take the trouble to read Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, which is surprisingly a very reasonable thesis, given the extreme controversy surrounding it. Personally, I do think the IQ people are on to something, but I also believe they are less than willing to admit their methodological weaknesses, which run aplenty. Best, Miguel Chavez 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes the subject of IQ is tangential; The Mismeasure of Man takes a primarily historical perspective, exposing the pseudoscientific origins of the concept of IQ and its subsequent abuse, and there are plenty of biologists who regard this area of psychology as still deeply flawed. However the issue is not whether some of Gould's opinions were controversial, some clearly were, but about the context of the controversies and Gould's role in them. Gould was a major scientist of considerable impact for his scientific adademic contributions, who garnered an extraordinary collection of honours and accolades from academic institutions in recognition of those; he became the spokesman of a large body of scientific opinion on several controversial issues: creationism, IQ and sociobiology; on each of these issues Gould argued, inter alia, that science was being subverted to pseudoscience and abused for political ends. Because his was a voice of widely accepted authority within academic science, and because he also gained an unparalleled following through his popularisation of science, he became the frequent focus of personal attacks. I'm merely one of many who have cited Gould in the scientific literaure, and who feel that the nature of some of the personal attacks on Gould are shameful, yet their nature is itself a validation of one of Gould's recurrent themes, that scientific opinions always have to be assessed in the context of the times, including the social and political context, and that dispassionate and objective science requires acknowledgement and understanding of our present prejudices and preconceptions. Gould was first and foremost an outstanding scientist and thinker; this gave him the authority that made subsequent controversies so notable. In those controversies, his voice was representative of the views of many others, but in his own science he made significant original contributions. Gleng 09:02, 31 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)

Hello Oskart. We sure wrote quite a bit of words for what ultimately came down to very little change. But before we finish, I wanted to address a point you made, which was very good. The reason why I consider Dawkins more controversial than Gould is that Dawkins advances a more unrealistic version of evolution. It is elegant, intuitive, beautiful, and taken seriously by few. His appreciation for speciation, morphological and genetic constraints, macroevolutionary tempos and trends, among a few other things, is very limited. And I hate to say this—since I greatly admire both Dawkins' writings and courage—but he tends to go off on tangents he knows very little about. For instance punctuated equilibrium and philosophy (although I completely agree with him on the last). His gene-centered view of selection has been attacked by philosophers and evolutionists alike. His greatest contribution has been his excellent popular works, as well as his metaphor of the extended phenotype. Gould however contributed much more to paleontology and evolutionary theory, and his ideas are more widely discussed and have spurred vast amounts of serious scientific research (especially with regards to paleontology). The reason Gould has a controversy section, I suppose, is that Gould was further entrenched in controversial subjects (punctuated equilibrium, sociobiology, adaptation, phyletic origin, rapid modes of speciation, etc.) and was quite aggressive about it. Gould also openly engaged his opponents and tried to instigate discussion (and to a large extent, some polarization). This obviously created some backlash, but it also benefited evolutionary theory by attracting attention to areas of theoretical debate, which were largely ignored. Best, Miguel Chavez 07:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Oskart; all the points you made were good points for consideration; I wasn't writing to deny that, only to contribute to the discussion so that all sides can see this article from various perspectives on Gould and his work - and especially from the often underappreciated impact that his purely scientific contributions have had. ;) Gleng 08:15, 1 September 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)

Linking to something does not mean Wikipedia is promoting it (Wikipedia does not promote anything). And explain how a link is inadequate without resorting to Reductio ad Hitlerum.-- Oskart 01:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Substitute the Hitler analogy which was a bit closer to some article on evolution with a link to a creationist website with the usual BSism made up of tendentious exposition of facts. -- Extremophile 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So what does the link have to do with creationists and how does that make the link inadequate? (FYI: "adequate" and "inadequate" does not mean good or bad, it means enough or not enough.) -- Oskart 03:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Oskart in this case. The link "Mismeasure of Gould" contains an almost complete survey of Gould's critics, which I have found very useful. It contains excerpts from Dawkins, Ruse, Pinker, Dennet, Alcock, Sterelny as well as Corroll and Rushton. It therefore allows readers to read the criticism directly, rather than second hand. Information is information, regardless of where it comes from. It goes with out saying that Mr. Matt Nuenke, the proprietor and editor of the website, has an agenda (and is a quack of sorts), but thankfully he didn't write anything here. Not really, anyway. It's the intellectual work of other individuals--who are not racist or advocates of eugenics. So although I share your sentiments, I have to vote against. Mchavez 04:15, 27 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?

Given the consensus is that " creation science" and " intelligent design" are pseudosciences I read the wording "...and other forms of pseudoscience" not in relation to those but in relation to other subjects which are also addressed earlier (though it doesn't say so in our article I'm refering to the selection quotas of humans (what we now would call racism) with the US Immigration Restriction Act of 1924) which Gould addresses in "Mismeasure of Man". The obit in the Guardian says, "Gould's critique of the pseudoscience of claims concerning the inheritance of intelligence, developed in one of his best-known books, The Mismeasure Of Man (1981), became a major source for anti-racist campaigners." http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,719828,00.html I think it's safe to say that both fact that he "spent much of his time fighting" + "..." + "and other forms of pseudoscience" is not original research. That he has contributed to related books e.g. the forward in "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Supersition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" by Michael Shermer means he was confortable with the word "pseudoscience". Ttiotsw 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Tell me, have you ever read Gould? I have. And some of Dawkins' published comments on him. That articles' nonsense, mischaracterising the punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism debate. Dawkins, in the Blind Watchmaker, I believe, said Gould was probably right about the core of his punctuated equilibrium theory, but disagreed strongly to how Gould presented it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the following articles clarify matters further: Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? by Dr Don Batten and Gould grumbles about creationist ‘hijacking’ by Don Batten 136.183.146.158 00:47, 26 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)

I believe the following is true and invalidates your complaint: "Gould in particular made a number of strong statements in the 1970s about the lack of evidence in the fossils for the gradual transformation of one species into another. For example, in 1977 Gould wrote: ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology… . to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’13 (emphasis added) [2] 136.183.146.158 02:42, 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)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons, which partially applies as he died only a couple years ago. That is what is commonly known as a "defamatory article". Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, look at the article more closely. It cites its claims as can be seen by the footnotes. Also, the article cites some socialist online publications for further reading. I also cite this from the article: "The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.1 The Encyclopedia of the American Left singled Gould out as one of the ‘few scientists [who] have emerged as major public allies of the Left’ and as ‘perhaps the most formidable example of a supportive presence at Left events and for Left causes.’2 [3] 136.183.146.158 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ken, please stop. *Spark* 03:19, 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

When I added the Dawkins stuff I thought that as the Gould article had a specific section on NOMA (a concept which Gould specifically termed and promoted) I felt the Dawkins criticism WRT NOMA would be lost in the controversies section. Someone hunting for NOMA and criticsm should find the data faster as you have done it so wouldn't recommend hiding it in "Controversies". It is unclear what your allegation of bias on my part is based on. Ttiotsw 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Merge FGT2 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge -- I don't see any real point to it as a stand-alone. -- Christofurio 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose -- The pseudo-controversy over the so-called "Darwinian Fundamentalism" is a canard, and is quite simply irrelevant to the actual work of Stephen Jay Gould. Blind designer 20:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose -- The existence of a "Darwinian Fundamentalism" is independent to Stephen Jay Gould. However, the entry of DF should be expanded, cleaned and should mention that there would be DF even if Stephen J. Gould would never existed.
• Oppose -- My feelings here are mixed. First of all Gould's "Darwinian Fundamentalism" isn't significant enough to have a stand alone article. It's an entertaing read, surely, but it's certainly no Origin of Species, or " A structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid." Secondly, even within Gould's own body of work it doesn't stand out. It is nothing more than a book review. Now everyone who cares about evolutionary theory should read it of course, but it's not like it marked a turning point in Gould's career. It was a review. A response to Dennet. Not only that, how often have you encountered the word "Darwinian Fundamentalism" in the literature, that is, outside people discussing that particular paper? Answer, not very often! Best, Miguel Chavez 08:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- One actually rather wonders if this article should be deleted. It's not a notable work of Gould's. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Adaptationism would be a better merge candidate than this page. Pete.Hurd 15:51, 28 February 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)

Yeah, I don't think anyone liked the ending. But it was nice to see Gould on one of my all time favorite shows. According to Shalini Bhargava, of The Stanford Daily, "Gould agreed to work on the episode because the script was 'interesting,' and it only took 10 minutes, he said. 'I didn't see it initially until the day it was shown,' he said." Best, Mchavez 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the episode itself was from Season 9 of the series, one of the weakest seasons in the show's history. Shrumster 10:07, 4 April 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)

Excellent. And your suggestion's are right on the mark. I've briefly taken care to eliminate the confusion over Gould's views on selection. When time permits, I, or one of the regular contributors here, will clarify the areas you mentioned. Thanks! Mchavez 09:59, 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" :

Gould was also a considerably respected historian of science. Historian Ronald Numbers has been quoted as saying: "I can't say much about Gould's strengths as a scientist, but for a long time I've regarded him as the second most influential historian of science (next to Thomas Kuhn).

Travb ( talk) 02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlike, say, law, a degree in history is not required to practice the subject. The existence of specific academic programs in History of Science or Science Studies is a relatively recent phenomenon. The claim that he was a historian of science is amply justified by the source from which that quotation is taken (the citation includes a link), which documents the sheer volume of Gould's output in the field. One might be left, from his monographs, with the impression that he was primarily a historian, and only secondarily a paleontologist, rather than the reverse. I believe it is possible to find scholarly articles by Gould published in academic history-of-science journals, and in one of his books he criticizes the HoS community for generally refusing to cite his Natural History essays even when he established priority in that forum rather than in a peer-reviewed journal. 121a0012 ( talk) 05:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been quite a few notable, even famous, historians (in all disciplines of history) who did not get degrees in history. The only history discipline that requires a degree in history would be college level teaching in history. Natalie ( talk) 15:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I might add that Thomas Kuhn, without question the most prominent historian of science, was a trained physicist. Additionally Gould wrote over 100 scholarly papers as well as several books on the subject. He also taught the subject at Harvard for several years. Miguel Chavez

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)

Good idea, I'll try to integrate. WLU ( talk) 23:38, 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)

What a coincidence. I added a paragraph to the lead before I even read this comment. I've got a lot of experience working with leads, and this one could be better still. Leads should be able to stand alone as concise summaries of their topics. Leadwind ( talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It could still be slightly longer perhaps, but that's more than enough to avoid delisting. Thanks. Richard001 ( talk) 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Still working on the lead, plus reorging the body. Interesting topic. Leadwind ( talk) 13:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

zxvsdbdbc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.99.249 ( talk) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this even mean?

"Gould championed biological constraints as well as other non-selectionist forces in evolution. In particular, he considered higher functions of the human brain to be the byproduct of natural selection and not its selected result. This understanding undermines an essential premise of human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology."

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)

One can be both, as they address different questions. Atheism addresses your belief or nonbelief in God's existance. Agnosticism addresses your belief that the question is even knowable. Gould adopted both labels, and did so sincerely. Although in public he usually preferred the title agnostic, whereas atheist seemed to be the preferred adjective when in the company of his closest friends and family (e.g. his wife Rhonda and his friend Oliver Sacks). Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 08:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, I guess like agnostic theism (though that is defined in a different way; the proposition of God may be true, but the existance is unknown). Still, isn't it still considered simply agnosticism? Anyways, thanks for the speedy reply. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 04:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am reminded of Dawkins' response to a similar question. Technically, we are all agnostics, since we do not know the answer with 100% certainty. However, we use the term "atheist" - or those of use who do not believe, anyway - since we view it as exceedingly unlikely. He goes on to quote someone else - was it Douglas Adams? I can't remember - saying, "we can't prove that fairies or a teapot in orbit around Mars don't exist. But we don't believe them. While we are technically agnostic, we would say we are ateapotists and afairyists. -RadicalOne• ^{Contact Me}• _{Chase My Tail} 23:01, 30 January 2010 (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)

As I said above, noone knows with complete certainty, and is thus technically agnostic, but one who identifies as an atheist sees it as exceedingly unlikely and therefore effectually impossible for all intents and purposes. -RadicalOne• ^{Contact Me}• _{Chase My Tail} 20:42, 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 article evolved that way years ago when it was heavily biased against Gould. A number of editors, both critical and supportive of Gould, tried to balance the article with evenhanded commentary. Maynard Smith's positive comments were considered relevant due to the fact that they contradicted his more recent remarks that Gould was "confused" and not worth bothering with. You're right when you say Gould was polemical and scientifically biased. But those are hardly adjectives which Gould should be singled out for. Every prominent evolutionary biologist that I'm aware of can be accused of the same thing. It seems to go with the territory of being at the top of what you do. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gould was a massively overrated self-pusher 81.178.153.156 ( talk) 14:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And what is your evidence for this claim? Miguel Chavez ( talk) 22:43, 26 February 2012 (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)

Literature cited

And what about the use of the term hypothesis in the paper by Gould et al.? Does that not count? And you're citing non-peer reviewed books. What about peer-reviewed articles? It is peer-reviewed articles that deserve attention. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 16:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, I have already acknowledged that scientists have used the term hypothesis to describe punctuated equilibrium. That is not the issue. The issue is about relative frequency. A great majority of scientists, and this is especially true today, use the word theory to describe punctuated equilibrium. This is a fact. It is also a fact that among the most renown evolutionists, like Ernst Mayr and John Maynard Smith, the word theory is the preferred designation. You simply cannot find a source here and there and think you have made your case. You have to be familiar with the entire literature on the subject. And in this case, the literature is heavily against you.

Second, I read the paper you cited and I am left a bit confused. Throughout Gould and Eldredge's 1986 paper they use the word "theory" to describe their model of punctuated equilibrium, not hypothesis. They write, "We developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a guide for paleontological practice..." and "Paleontologists greeted our theory with interest..." As a matter of fact, I used it above as a counter example. But in any case, what needs to be done is to look at their entire body of published material, not just one or two examples. The point is that the vast majority of their papers and books use the word “theory” (as do their critics and supporters).

Third, virtually all of the literature I cited was peer reviewed, in one way or another. Either they were published in a peer reviewed journal—like Nature, Cell, or Paleobiology—or in books published by a university press. In both cases the manuscripts have to be vetted through a peer review process. But yet again, this is kind of missing the point. What I'm trying to convey is that among the big players in evolutionary biology, most scientists use the word theory when describing punctuated equilibrium. For example, is Ernst Mayr's word worth any less because he is writing in a book rather than a journal? Hardly. Miguel Chavez ( talk) 06:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@Mchavez, I concede the point that theory is now commonly used to describe punctuated equilibrium. Apparently, the 1986 paper by Gould and Eldredge uses both theory and hypothesis (e.g., see p. 146) to describe their theory. Second, there is a big difference between publishing a book and in a journal. I myself have done both. I can tell you from experience and as a scientist that they not equivalent. This IS SCIENCE, we are not in the business of hero worship. Anyway, that is straying from the main point, which I think is very much resolved by the extensive list of references that you provided. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy we could resolve this. But you're right that there are significant differences between publishing in a journal as compared to a book. For example, scientific journals are much more competitive and the process of peer review is especially intense. However from what I am told, books published through a university press go through a similar process of review. They are divided up by chapters and vetted by respective experts in their field. I'm not sure you were implying this, but I think it's unfair to equate books published by a university press to those published by a publishing house. The latter is almost exclusively concerned with sales figures, whereas the former probably looses money and is principally concerned with scholarship. In any case, my point was to establish that the major thinkers in evolutionary biology prefer to use the word "theory" when describing punctuated equilibrium regardless of what medium they use. And a final point here, it is kind of unrealistic to think that the anonymous reviewers of a journal really care one way or another whether an author prefers to use the word "theory" or "hypothesis." They are probably concerned with more pressing matters, like checking the data, the author's reasoning, and their sums. So in this case I think the issue of books vs. journals is a bit of a red herring.

Finally, I'd like to offer a small disagreement over the comment you made regarding science and hero worship. It is important to differentiate what we'd like to be the case, to what is the case. Of course we would like to believe that scientists are dispassionate discovers of truth, who are without egos and petty biases. But as scholarship in the history of science has shown us, scientists are anything but. Hero worship is rampant, and scientists (especially those who are at the forefront of their field) are very much vulnerable to prejudice, tribalism, envy, and other human foibles. What makes science special is not so much the nature of the people, but the nature of the process. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Books published by university press do go through some review but they are not as stringent. Plus, the author are not bound by the criticisms of the reviewers and can disregard them. Journal authors do not have such luxury.

You would be mistaken if authors/scientists are not concerned with the distinction between "theories" and hypotheses." Think of the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution in high schools and the arguments that it is "just a theory." How many times must scientists and educators remind the general public that there is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis? How many times in science classes, do we teach people the scientific method, which begins with forming a hypothesis? How many times are grant writers reminded to include the major hypotheses that they wish to test? Obviously, no so trivial. One term is just a guess, the other term is reality. Not a red herring at all. I am just surprised that punctuated equilibrium has been accepted as a theory, which means that it is very much part of the paradigm and here to stay for a long long time.

There is some hero worship in science, no doubt. You're right, there is always bias and prejudice. It is after all made by people. But that's the beauty of science, is that it is possible and even encouraged to challenge the ideas of the heroes to see if they wrong. And if you succeed, you get a prize. Not many fields are like that. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 19:13, 2 February 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)

He was born in the country which is known by that name in the English language. Only one of the countries you mention has that name. 121a0012 ( talk) 05:23, 12 August 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)

The article as it was before included Dawkins' admission that he had in essence been attacking his own mistaken understanding of PE. Now it reads in full-on attack mode with all this nonsense about "saltational steps" and other things that were never in what Gould actually wrote. Just because a Big Name Critic was confused about the content of the theory does not justify creating additional confusion on the part of readers of this article. (Need I point out that PE is a theory about the paleontological record, and Dawkins is not a paleontologist? Gould at least suggests in the Structure that this is one of the reasons for non-paleontologists' misunderstanding of the theory: words like "rapid" mean something very different to a paleontologist, working on geological time scales, and a biologist working with the lifespans of individuals.) 121a0012 ( talk) 02:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the admission of Dawkins you're talking about was from 1989. The Gould-critical quote I added is from 1998. Maybe Dawkins thought about it again, finally understood PE, and came to the conclusion that it represents a misleading theory anyway? We don't know. I think it is more probable that he never actually acknowledged any mistaken understanding in this matter.

Regarding "all this nonsense about saltational steps": please refer to the saltation (biology) article. There's a quote of Gould there to be found in which he says of Richard Goldschmidt that "much of his work should evoke sympathetic attention today." He is also quoted with "I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages." In light of quote like these, how can Dawkins' criticism not be warranted here? -- Mallexikon ( talk) 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to go back and read the Structure. One example (from chapter 9, which is 280 pages on the theoretical background of and critical reaction to PE):

The saltationist canard has persisted as our incubus. The charge could never be supported by proper documentation, for we never made the link or claim. All attempts collapse upon close examination. Dennett, for example, who insists that "for a while he [Gould] had presented punctuated equilibrium as a revolutionary "saltationist" alternative to standard neo-Darwinism," documents his supposed best case by assuring readers that "for a while, Gould was proposing that the first step in the establishment of any new species was a doozy -- a non-Darwinian saltation." Dennett directly follows this claim with his putative proof, yet another quotation from my 1980 paper, which he renders as follows: "Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution to greater effect, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change -- rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps non-adaptive."

[...]

Finally, the claim that we equated punctuated equilibrium with saltation makes no sense within the logical structure of our theory -- so, unless we are fools, how could we ever asserted such a proposition? Our theory holds, as a defining statement, that ordinary allopatric speciation, unfolding gradually at microevolutionary scales, translates to punctuation in geological time. (Structure, pp. 1008-1009, internal citations omitted)

He notes that a saltationist has no trouble explaining the geological record and would have no need for PE: the whole purpose of PE is to explain how the normal mode of microevolution can give rise to a fossil record in which gradual microevolutionary changes can rarely be identified. 121a0012 ( talk) 01:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, our discussion is fueled by what stands at the centre of the Gould/Dawkins quarrel: inconsistent statements made by Gould. The quote you're citing here sounds perfectly rational, but elsewhere he stated "that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages" and voices much sympathy for Goldschmidt. Now I think we can agree that he never clearly said that he believed in macromutation (as you demonstrated, actually he vocally denied this), but he often enough made statements which imply that he maybe believed in it anyway. However, the quote from Dawkins that I added to the article says exactly this ("The extreme Gouldian view - certainly the view inspired by his rhetoric, though it is hard to tell from his own words whether he literally holds it himself ..."), so I hope you can accept it. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 05:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the confusion arises not from inconsistent statements made by Gould, but rather your unfamiliarity with Gould's writings and the literature regarding punctuated equilibrium. For example, you confuse the debate regarding the origin of the Cambrian fauna with the debate regarding the emergence and stasis of species through time, which is a completely different dispute. With regard to Gould's sympathetic treatment of Richard Goldschmidt, the part of his research which Gould found favorable was his work on rate genes—not his work on "hopeful monsters." You neglected to cite Gould's statement: "I shall not defend everything Goldschmidt said; indeed, I disagree fundamentally with his claim that abrupt macroevolution discredits Darwinism." Gould's claim that "macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated" is not remotely an endorsement of saltational evolution, but rather is a broader criticism about reductionism in biology. Gould called this anti-extrapolationist viewpoint the "Goldschmidt break" (1980, 225). And it's not even a controversial position at that, and is probably considered mainstream by most professional biologists. The reason I suspect user 121a0012 thought you were "adding unwelcome bias to the article" was not because you included criticism per se, but you presented those criticisms as settled definitively against Gould. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 06:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, adding another quote from Gould doesn't really clarify anything here, since he did also say what I cited above ("...major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages"). And I'd like to reiterate what I said before: what you or I think to know about Gould's view or whether we like what he said or not doesn't matter even a tiny bit. What I added to the article is criticism by a certain Mr. Dawkins - the material is specifically about Gould, and it is reliably sourced. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 04:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

First, the criticism by Dawkins was not removed. It was simply moved to the appropriate section on the origin of the Cambrian fauna. This is an all together separate topic from punctuated equilibrium, as PE does not address the origin of new phyla, but rather the origin of new species. If you were remotely familiar with the literature on this topic, this fact would be obvious to you. Second, Gould's statement about "major structural transitions" again had nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium, but rather the importance of rate genes in producing novel structural features in evolution. An example would include heterochrony—such as neotenic growth, terminal additions and deletions—which were outlined in detail in his technical volume Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977). Third, punctuated equilibrium was never a saltational model of evolution. A few biologists did offer this criticism in the late 70s and early 80s (particularly from a misreading of his 1980 paper "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"), but this criticism has been universally rejected ever since the mid 80s, as neontologists became more familiar with the literature on the subject (see Mayr 1992). Even Dawkins on page 236 of the Blind Watchmaker writes, "the theory of punctuated equilibria is frequently confused with saltatory evolution. But it was a digression, because the theory of punctuated equilibria is the main topic of this chapter, and that theory in truth has no connection with macromutation and true saltation." And on page 244 he writes, "As I have stressed, the theory of punctuated equilibrium, by Eldredge and Gould's own account, is not a saltationist theory." I understand that you're trying to help, but it's clear that you're delving into unfamiliar territory, and your contributions are only going to further confuse readers. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 14:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, chill dude, no need for ad hominem attacks here. You're right: the quote from Dawkins was misplaced by me since it refers to the Cambrian explosion and not to PE. I'll add a proper quote where Dawkins specifically criticized the confusion that Gould created with PE. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 04:24, 21 November 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)

He actually addresses this in Punctuated Equilibrium; some publication ran a picture of Jay Gould instead and he did not know who it was. From this I gather he was not named for him. -- Dagko ( talk) 15:57, 29 October 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)

If you read the whole review, it is clear that the editors were very selective in the portion they chose to quote here. Klortho ( talk) 23:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how the material is given undue weight, or how the content you want to remove is misleading in any way. Please respect WP:BRD and let discussion develop instead of edit warring to remove the material. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I described my reasons for making the change in my edit summaries. Yours amounted to, "no, you're wrong". You're reply above is more of the same. Klortho ( talk) 09:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me elaborate a little bit. The lines I removed are selectively pulled from the Nature editorial Mismeasure for mismeasure. You can see that it is POV cherry-picking of quotations by just checking the source. Here are some other quotes from the same source that *weren't* picked:

* "But these motivations are not a reason to discount the group's critique."

* "By documenting their methods and data, as they argue Morton did, the paper's authors have made it possible for others to scrutinize their claims. Transparent documentation should allow science as a whole to be objective, even if individual authors are not."

* "Just as important is the readiness of the scientific community to undertake such studies, and to see them through the sometimes difficult publication process. The criticism of Gould was rejected by the journal Current Anthropology, and spent eight months in the review process at PLoS Biology. "

* "And although an undergraduate did publish a more modest study scrutinizing Gould in 1988, it is remarkable that it has taken more than 30 years for a research group to check Gould's claims thoroughly."

* "Did Gould's compelling writing and admirable anti-racist motivations help to delay scrutiny of his facts? Quite possibly, and this is regrettable."

Klortho ( talk) 16:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Your not liking my edit summaries does not mean that you can remove material without consensus. I am not convinced by your arguments. Obviously one needs to be selective in what material is quoted from any article or any source. The fact that other material was not quoted certainly does not mean that the material that is quoted is somehow not appropriate or helpful to readers; why would you suggest it does? As far as I can see, the material is properly cited and relevant. Please stop removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 06:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm really going to have to ask you to stop reverting my change. I've tried to appease you, but you are being completely unreasonable: I gave good reasons for removal, and you reverted saying, basically, "I disagree". I've supported my argument here on the talk page, waited a bit to see if there was any objection, got no response from you, and then went ahead and removed it again. Predictably, you immediately reverted again right away -- why wait until after I made the change again before responding? It is extremely rude, if nothing else.

To your question: the quote that was pulled out of the editorial was not representative -- that's the point. It was cherry-picking. Further, it is undue weight because it is very weak criticism *of the criticism* -- i.e. meta-criticism. It has to come out. Don't revert again without discussing first -- there needs to be some good rationale for why this should be in the article, and if it is, then we're going to need to add some of those other quotes for balance -- maybe you could write up a draft. Klortho ( talk) 06:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, once again, I am going to have to ask you to stop reverting. You are the one who wants to make the change, so you are the one who needs to get consensus for it. It's too bad if you don't like that; it's the way things work here. Your reasons are not good at all. I repeat my disagreement with them. Your behavior - aggressively making the same change over and over, with no attempt at dispute resolution - is rude. You have barely given any justification for your changes. You comment, "the quote that was pulled out of the editorial was not representative"; but of course that isn't a valid reason for removing something. Did it occur to you that if the quote was not representative, the proper solution might be to add other material from the editorial to balance the article? You also comment "Further, it is undue weight because it is very weak criticism *of the criticism* -- i.e. meta-criticism." Why is it weak? Just because you say so? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It is weak because, A. They say the authors didn't measure all the skulls, but they measured if I remember correctly, 300 skulls, ample for statistical inferences. B. As I said before, they just hint at the possibility of bias -- a very weak argument that anyone could make about anything. Your turn: do you not see that this material is not representative? And please respond to *all* of my rationale, please stop doing these drive bys. As for my making the same change ... I'm just trying to make a simple change to improve this article, and it shouldn't be this hard, and one could say the same thing about you: making the same change over and over. Klortho ( talk) 07:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you want to remove the material because, in your judgment, it's unconvincing or incorrect. OK. I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but your opinion about the correctness or incorrectness of the views of the authors in question is irrelevant. We as Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to remove or add material simply because we do (or don't) agree with it; rather, we are supposed to remove or add material to improve the encyclopedic quality of articles. When there is an argument about a complex issue in science or psychology, it's important that the views of both sides be represented even if some of those views are indeed weak or incorrect; otherwise neutrality is impossible, and readers can hardly understand what the debate is about. Your case amounts to, "Here is some stuff that I find unconvincing, so I'm going to remove it." If this were a debate, you just lost it. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

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)

OpenFuture, you commented, "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." Those comments are empty truisms. "Wikipedia should reflect the consensus" is not relevant in situations where there is no consensus. What makes you think there is a "consensus" about race and intelligence issues, rather than ongoing debate? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 21:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither this article, nor the section, nor the disputed material is about race and intelligence issues. Hence that question is completely irrelevant. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 21:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing ongoing debate about the work of Samuel George Morton, not a consensus, so your comment about Wikipedia reflecting a consensus of course is beside the point. The article on Morton states, incidentally: "Morton believed that the skulls of each race were so different that a wise creator from the beginning had created each race and positioned them in separate homelands to dwell in. Morton believed that cranial capacity determined intellectual ability, and he used his craniometric evidence in conjunction with his analysis of anthropological literature then available to argue in favor of a racial hierarchy which put Caucasians on the top rung and Africans on the bottom..." So how is race and intelligence not relevant? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 21:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The material being discussed is a paper published in Nature. Samuel George Morton is not one of the authors. Discussion about his work is not relevant to this topic. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what the hell are you talking about? Here is a link to me restoring the material. It concerns an argument about Morton, and about Gould's criticism of Morton, so how could it conceivably be true that "Discussion about his work is not relevant to this topic"? Just what do you think the topic is? Why is "discussion about his work not relevant to this topic" when the topic is a paper that concerns Morton? I am trying to assume good faith, but you look to be either totally uninformed or else utterly biased in your comments. Why say that the material has nothing to do with race and intelligence issues when obviously it does? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 22:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your attitude and general rudeness forces me to stop discussing the topic, and start discussing you, because it is clearly you who is the problem here. So here goes:

All your replies so far takes off from the opening of my comments. Sentences you said was "truisms". This reasonably means you agree with them. Yet you are still discussing it. Why? And why are you ignoring the central part of my reply? We are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, not to wage war. Please get on track. This is not a discussion forum, and this is not the place for you to get a daily kick out of online fighting. Drop the attitude.

There. Now we return to our regular programs. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I asked you a reasonable question: "how is race and intelligence not relevant?" You responded with a series of statements that were either false or nonsensical, suggesting that you may, indeed, have a questionable "attitude" yourself. You asserted that the material has nothing to do with race and intelligence issues, when anyone can see that it does. You have consistently failed to explain why you would do that. I am still waiting for a proper explanation. Might I suggest that you have absolutely nothing to do with offering third opinions in future? You certainly don't seem to be very good at it. I do agree, of course, that "Wikipedia should report the consensus", but as I said, that's not relevant in a situation where obviously there is an ongoing debate, rather than a consensus. Everything you have said in reply has been diversionary blather that doesn't address the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

My point is that all of your replies are "diversionary blather" that completely ignores the core of my provided third opinion. You are of course free to ignore it as you like, it's a free wiki, but please note that I will not let myself get dragged into your little petty wikiwar. I will answer your future questions if they actually relate to the third opinion I provided. Otherwise not. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your point is wrong. You commented, "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." I replied that there is no "consensus" to reflect in this case. I stand by that reply; there does not appear to be any consensus about the merits of the paper criticizing Gould. As for your lofty refusal to answer my question about why you would state that the material has nothing to do with the race and intelligence issue, that only suggests to me that you cannot answer it (and if that comment of yours was not relevant to your third opinion, why would you make it in the first place?). FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"there does not appear to be any consensus about the merits of the paper criticizing Gould" - As should be clear from my provided Third Opinion, I disagree with that statement. I think there is a clear consensus that this paper has a lot of problems. And that is only ONE of the reasons why I think it should not be mentioned in that section at all. The other reasons are also stated in my reply. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 23:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Insofar as those criticizing the paper in fact expressed a range of different views, rather than all speaking from one point of view, it ought to be quite obvious that there is no agreement about its merits. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Many different people coming with different criticisms is not "a range of different views". -- OpenFuture ( talk) 23:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It is quite clear, looking at the range of responses to the paper criticizing Gould, that the reviewers were in some disagreement with each other as well as with the paper. I really don't know why you keep replying to me, as it's clear that you aren't accomplishing anything. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:45, 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)

Your only real mistake is to fill this talk page with pointless tripe such as that comment. Stop it. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, what a lot has happened since I was here last! Sorry I can't be more active, but I have a day job that keeps me pretty busy.

It's a bit validating to read the above exchange; apparently, I'm not the only one whom @FreeKnowledgeCreator rubs the wrong way.

But back to the issue: FreeKnowledgeCreator, you are not arguing in good faith with me. You asked me why I thought the criticism of the criticism was weak, and when I gave an answer, you immediately pulled out NOR (and in a really derisive tone, to boot). It is not OR to have an opinion about the relevance of material to include in an article -- it is simply editorial judgement, that you practice every time you make an edit.

Your actions from the beginning of this dispute have all been of a similar nature -- you are not acting in good faith. I believe you are erecting arbitrary roadblocks because removing this material doesn't jibe with your POV. Your very first response, when you reverted my edit was "Seems like useful and important content" without any support. (Which makes it particularly galling that you lectured me on the criteria for including content).

So, you still haven't addressed the issues:

• WP:CHERRYPICK. You wrote, "'the quote that was pulled out of the editorial was not representative'; but of course that isn't a valid reason for removing something." Of course it is. Please read that policy (although, that shouldn't be necessary: it's common sense.)
• WP:BALASPS (i.e. relevance of this particular criticism of the criticism). You wrote, "Did it occur to you that if the quote was not representative, the proper solution might be to add other material from the editorial to balance the article?" That's not a good suggestion, because the editorial review is already given undue weight, because it offers no substantive criticism, the authors just toss out a couple of opinions. Quoting the policy page, "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Suggesting that the Lewis et al might possibly have been biased, without providing any evidence that they are, falls into this category.

@OpenFuture, I appreciate your stepping in, but removing all references to Lewis et. al. isn't an option. It's a very highly respected piece of analysis (notwithstanding the references you gave) on a topic of enormous importance.

Klortho ( talk) 01:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Klortho, I believe you are the one not arguing in good faith. You even seem to be misrepresenting your own past comments. When I first asked why you objected to the criticism of the paper discussing Gould, you replied, "It is weak because, A. They say the authors didn't measure all the skulls, but they measured if I remember correctly, 300 skulls, ample for statistical inferences. B. As I said before, they just hint at the possibility of bias -- a very weak argument that anyone could make about anything." Clearly, then, you were expressing your personal disagreement with the material. You now assert that you questioned its relevance, a completely different objection. You do not help yourself by citing someone's essay ( WP:CHERRYPICK) as though it were policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Are you kidding me? That's really your response? Let me spell it out, again: it is not relevant, because it is weak. The response you quoted above was my explanation of why it is weak. I never disagreed with the authors - that would have been impossible, because they merely state some obvious facts: Lewis et. al. didn't measure all the skulls. And, they might have been biased. Both are true, but trivial. Next, I concede: you win. You are more familiar with WP policies than I am. But does "no cherry-picking" really need to be an official policy? It's common sense, esp. with regard to NPOV. You're just flaunting your knowledge of these policies to avoid any engagement with the issues I'm raising. I've never been in this situation before, I'm going to be seeking other remedies. Klortho ( talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia editors are often not able to appreciate that things that may be obvious to them are not necessarily obvious to Wikipedia's readers. You personally finding something to be obvious is not a valid reason for removing it, then. I should have thanked you, however, for your response to OpenFuture: "OpenFuture, I appreciate your stepping in, but removing all references to Lewis et. al. isn't an option. It's a very highly respected piece of analysis (notwithstanding the references you gave) on a topic of enormous importance." It helps make it that much more obvious how biased his third opinion was. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 06:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked you multiple times to remain civil, this is the last time I ask you nicely. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I do apologize if my comments seem uncivil. That really is not my intention, and I will try harder to abide by WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, it can be hard to remain civil when someone complains about another editor's incivility while simultaneously refusing to address the substance of their comments, as you have done several times, and as you do again above. Perhaps you should consider that if you respond to a dispute between two users by offering a third opinion, and both of the users disagree with you and reject your third opinion, then you may in fact be in the wrong? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Look at yourself first, if you get angry in a civil discussion, don't blame the others.

2. Stop discussing other editors. I am not the topic of this article, and neither is you. Why are you constantly trying to discuss us? Stop. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to follow your own advice? You said above, "Your attitude and general rudeness forces me to stop discussing the topic, and start discussing you, because it is clearly you who is the problem here". Maybe you should instead have discussed the article, instead of starting a discussion of me? Is there a double standard here? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I tried to get you to focus on discussing the article instead of rudely discussing me. That failed. You are probably right, I shouldn't have done that, I should just have ignored you. You don't want a civil discussion, you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here to push your POV. Good luck with that. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 09:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If I wasn't completely civil, that's because your comments were very strange, looked evasive (to put it mildly), and I found it hard to make sense of them. One can reasonably expect editors to try to be completely clear and to the point in your comments; you were anything but. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Klortho, Although we disagree on how respected it is, it is nonetheless given undue importance. It only criticizes one part of the book, and does in no way reflect the debate about the book as a whole. The section as it is now is directly misleading, giving the incorrect impression that this is the major piece of criticism against the book. It's in that case better to direct people to the books main article, where obviously this paper is referenced, and also, the criticism of the paper is mentioned. So yes, removing those references is an option, it is in fact the only option. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

FreeObstructionCreator wrote, "It is unfortunate that Wikipedia editors are often not able to appreciate that things that may be obvious to them are not necessarily obvious to Wikipedia's readers. You personally finding something to be obvious is not a valid reason for removing it, then." - What are you talking about? You seem to be a bright person, so when you write something like this, that's why it's hard to believe good faith. It's a complete mischaracterizatoin of what I said. Would you please, for the sake of my sanity, take five minutes before writing your next reply, take a couple of deep breaths, and actually consider what I've written? Klortho ( talk) 09:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you like it, Klortho, if I deliberately misspelled your user name, maybe by merging it with some obscene expression or other? I consider myself a civilized person, so I wouldn't actually do a thing like that, but why would you behave in a way that might prompt a less civilized person to respond in such a fashion? I might be more likely to respond to any issues of substance if you could avoid obvious and unnecessary rudeness. Wikipedia is not meant to be a playpen. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Your username is self-aggrandizing. After my interactions with you, I refuse to indulge your vanity by using it. Once again, of course, you've found an excuse to avoid the topic. Klortho ( talk) 13:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If you engage in deliberate rudeness by misrepresenting or misspelling my username, then you make further discussion impossible. To an outside observer, that may well seem like the purpose of such rudeness. Have you considered the consequences? You could have answered your own question ("What are you talking about") if you had bothered to read me carefully. You complained about how, "Lewis et. al. didn't measure all the skulls. And, they might have been biased. Both are true, but trivial." The point of my response is that while you may find all this obvious or trivial, readers may not, since it may be entirely new information to them. Hence, there do not appear to be any good grounds for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:14, 26 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)

Thank you for a reasonable comment. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Elmidae. I'd suggest that you are wrong when you write, "There is no reason to omit the details here." Mismeasure has it's own article page, and the section we're discussion is about the narrow topic of criticism by just one paper (Lewis et. al.) of just one of the works of Gould (albeit perhaps the most significant). For these reasons, we must limit the details - there have been tens, if not hundreds of essays and reviews, that would qualify as reliable sources, about just this particular Lewis paper.

My main contention is that it lacks balance. The section as a whole does, and as I've pointed out, these particular quotes are cherry-picked. If we keep this, then other material will have to be added to reduce the POV slant. I can start gathering references; but the problem is, as I said, that the section is probably already too long for this article. Klortho ( talk) 15:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this in general. The section is probably already too long. If we include the criticism we need to balance it with the criticism of the criticism which makes it even longer. This paper critisizes only one little part of the whole book, so then we need to include other criticism as well. And in the end we end up basically including the whole main article. And what is the point of THAT? Hence, I think this section should only mention that this book has been highly controversial, and link to the main article for more information about the controversies. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. All right, I was going to say that adding more material to achieve balance would be a good thing, but seeing to what depth The Mismeasure of Man goes, there's indeed a fairly strong case to be made for referring the reader over there rather than reinventing the wheel here. As it is, none of the material is in danger of being swept under the carpet, it's just treated elsewhere. - Sorry, about-turn; rather keep it short and snappy in the present article then. Should have looked at the Mismeasure article before chiming in here.-- Elmidae ( talk) 18:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Move to Mismeasure article. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 18:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing most of the material from the "Mismeasure of Man" subsection here, and folding it into the main "Controversy" section, but I would object to removing any mention of the Lewis article, as it was a very significant criticism of Gould's work, and generated a lot of controversy (to this day). Klortho ( talk) 19:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, just cutting the paragraph that appears to have been the bone of contention here would be the worse choice. If anything it provides a balance for the remainder of the section. If this section were to be condensed I would say one should a) add this material (the much-reverted 840 bytes), then b) cut down on the entirety, keeping the gist of all constituents.-- Elmidae ( talk) 07:00, 27 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)

References

You are absolutely right. The same user tried to include this stuff in the Creationism artcle, and everybody except him saw it was inapprioprate. As a consequence, it was removed. I just deleted it here too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As a rule I hate to remove a contribution that was made in good faith. If there is an issue, surely there are several pathways to compromise and fix any problems or disputes. In this case I was stuck. The contribution was a non sequitur (literally random, and not following what came before). It is included in a section about Gould's influence as a public intellectual. In this sphere, the NCSE started a project in Gould's honor. Then an editor takes issue with an unrelated (and rather trivial) comment: "Gould's 1986 claim of creationism as a 'local, indigenous, American bizarrity' has been deemed a significant error - as creationist ideas had already then been spreading quicker and more globally ever since, especially in the 1990s." I thought, even if this is true (see sources above), what does this have to do with Gould as a public intellectual? Why is the article going off in a tangent about the growth of Creationism in the West? Is this the best place to litigate this topic? Read in context the sentence is painfully awkward, probably false, too trivial to be included in an encyclopedia, and seems to serve no larger purpose. Thank you for the help. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess one could add the text to an article about Graf, if we had one. But even that would be a stretch. I don't see any other good place for it within WP. After all, it is essentially "some obscure theologian disagreed with a famous paleontologist about sociological stuff". Neither here nor there. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal; this elaborate focus on a random theologian is WP:UNDUE in this article. He does not seem to be perceived as having played a marked role in the evaluation of SJG's work.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:09, 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)

Yes, it's pretty light stuff. Scientific American mentioned his being called a "crypto-Marxist. But Marx’s highly deterministic, progressive view of history seemed antithetical to Gould's." Definitely not Marxist-Leninist there. Socialism Today said "Gould appears to have consciously attempted to apply a broadly-Marxist method of analysis to evolution", and mentioned that Gould ended an essay with Marx's "Philosophers thus far have only interpreted the world in various ways: the point, however, is to change it." In the same essay he stated ""Hegelians and Marxists have long advocated the ‘transformation of quantity into quality’ as a basic statement about the nature of change." This also indicates he may have admired them but didn't consider himself to be one of them. So we have crypto-, broadly-, and general interest. Perhaps we could use the word "soft". Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Gould was not a Marxist. His father was, however. Gould always eschewed labels, particularly when it came to politics or religion. I remember reading that Gould's father was always disappointed by his rejection of Marxism. As a result, Gould agreed to chair an advisory board for the journal Rethinking Marxism in an effort to please him. People close to Gould generally report he was not a Marxist. And this seems to be the consensus view among family, friends, colleagues, and biographers. The only people who claim he was a Marxist are a few Marxist admirers, but more often critics of Gould looking for a cheap rhetorical shot. David Prindle wrote in his book Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution "Nevertheless, as a first characterization, it is most accurate to speak of Gould as a non-Marxist leftist." ( p. 24) Anthropologist Brian Morris stated, "He was essentially a radical liberal, or a non-Marxist 'leftist'." (Anthropology and the Human Subject, p. 114.) Michael Shermer, Gould's friend, and fellow historian of science, put it plainly: "Gould was not a Marxist." (Rethinking Marxism. London: Routledge Press, p. 507.) Gould's widow Rhonda Roland Shearer wrote, "Steve was not a communist. [sic] He carefully said he learned communism 'on his father's knee' — not that he was a communist. Steve always felt badly that he disappointed his father by not becoming a Marxist. He, therefore, in honor of his father, gave the occasional lecture at communist locales, pro bono. He mentioned how his critical independence from his father was struck on the day he realized that communism was 'misguided' and he dared to argue the points with his father. After the fall of communism, Steve reflected that he was happy his father was 'not alive to see it.' Steve did not like pigeon holes. Critics attacked him with statements 'he is an atheist' or 'he is a red' or 'he is a communist.' Steve would never retort 'I am not a communist' or 'I am not an atheist.' Too evocative of the McCarthy era for his taste." (Dated March 21, 2007) Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 07:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That would explain the "crypto-Marxist" accusation, then. Maybe that's all that needs to be said. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:21, 25 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)"

Originally the section on Morton's skulls was longer and over time it has subsequently been truncated, I think correctly so, on the basis that the topic has been given undo weight. The Mitchell PLOS paper is an interesting addition to the story, but it doesn't add much to what has already been said by Lewis, Weisberg, Kaplan, et. al. Cesaravi ( talk) 03:25, 12 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)

Hmm. Doesn't strike me as egregious or undue, actually (particularly as it's just one sentence). It's not exactly a heavily cited study [8], but neither have people descended on it and called it out as faulty. Mismeasure is one of the Gould friction points, and should get a fair amount of ancillary material; as it does in our current article. I'd retain this. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I was leaning that way myself. Cesaravi ( talk) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

For a more mainstream view of Gould's legacy I would recommend Michael Shermer's "This View of Science", which examines this question both quantitatively and qualitatively. To ensure neutrality, examine how Gould's ideas are considered in evolutionary college textbooks, like Douglas Futuyma's highly-regarded Evolution. Look at which institutions hired him, which journals published his work, which institutions awarded him fellowships, honors, and requested speaking engagements. Also, read the numerous accolades given to him by his professional colleagues after his death. Look at Gould's incredibly high h-index—a metric which measures scientific productivity and impact. A "successful scientist" generally has an h-index of 20, an "outstanding scientist" an h-index of 40, and a "truly unique" individual scores ≈ 60. Gould's h-index is 106. I believe that the article accurately reflects his legacy as a highly regarded though sometimes controversial evolutionary biologist. Cesaravi ( talk) 16:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The author, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is not an evolutionary biologist himself. He is not even a scientist. What he writes shows a deep misunderstanding of how science works. Yes, scientists disagree with each other. Yes, some of them, like Gould, go over the top rhetorically, and anger their colleagues. Still, Gould wrote so much that even if "most of his ideas are wrong", there is enough left.

Read Punctuated equilibrium#Criticism. The only criticism from an actual biologist is from Dawkins, and he misrepresents what Gould and Eldredge said. That "apparent gaps represented in the fossil record to document migratory events" is exactly what punctuated equilibrium says. Both sides agree that speciation takes a few thousand years, but a few thousand years is a very long time for a neontologist like Dawkins and a very short time for a paleontologist like Gould. So, for Dawkins it's "gradual", and for Gould it's "rapid". -- Hob Gadling ( talk)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• StephenJayGould3.jpg

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)