Re: Gould vs Darwin question
Warren Sarle (saswss@hotellng.unx.sas.com)
Mon, 2 Oct 1995 23:54:03 GMT
In article <4482ks$16n@lynx.unm.edu>, estrayer@capella.unm.edu (eric strayer) writes:
|> ...
|> What this student said was something like "Well,
|> everyone knows that Gould has it in for Darwin . . ."
|> And s/he wouldn't back down or open up on the topic.
Gould is a would-be evolutionary revolutionary, but it is a
gross exaggeration to say that "Gould has it in for Darwin".
Daniel Dennett's 1995 book, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ contains a
delicious demolition of Gould's pretensions, especially his
disastrous excursion into art history in "The Spandrels of San Marco
and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist
Programme", Proceedings of the Royal Society, B205, 581-598, with
Lewontin in 1979.
|> I subsequently looked into Gould's book "Ever Since
|> Darwin" (the usual collection of easy reading but
|> eloquent essays from N. History) in which he seems to
|> have nothing bad at all to say of Darwin.
|>
|> Does something come up later in Gould's career to
|> sour his opinion? I mean, the book I cited is kind
|> of old -- 1976 I think.
Gould has referred to _Ever Since Darwin_ as an embarrassment.
sci.bio.evolution would be a better place to find information
on Gould.
--
Warren S. Sarle SAS Institute Inc. The opinions expressed here
saswss@unx.sas.com SAS Campus Drive are mine and not necessarily
(919) 677-8000 Cary, NC 27513, USA those of SAS Institute.
|