What do you think?
Rate this book
Stephen Jay Gould: Reflections on His View of Life
Considered by many during his lifetime as the most well-known scientist in the world, Stephen Jay Gould left an enormous and influential body of work. A Harvard professor of paleontology, evolutionary biology, and the history of science, Gould provided major insights into our understanding of the history of life. He helped to reinvigorate paleontology, launch macroevolution on a new course, and provide a context in which the biological developmental stages of an organism's embryonic growth could be integrated into an understanding of evolution. This book is a set of reflections on the many areas of Gould's intellectual life by the people who knew and understood him former students and prominent close collaborators. Mostly a critical assessment of his legacy, the chapters are not technical contributions but rather offer a combination of intellectual bibliography, personal memoir, and reflection on Gould's diverse scientific achievements. The work includes the most complete
bibliography of his writings to date and offers a multi-dimensional view of Gould's life-work not to be found in any other volume.
bibliography of his writings to date and offers a multi-dimensional view of Gould's life-work not to be found in any other volume.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published November 5, 2008
3 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 16, 2024
A SERIES OF ESSAYS BY STUDENTS AND COLLEAGUES WHO KNEW GOULD WELL
The editors wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “Although Steve Gould’s death on May 20, 2002, provided the immediate impetus for this book, its original motivation came from a review of his book ‘Structure of Evolutionary Theory,’ published just before his death. That review… suggested to us that Steve’s science was even more widely misunderstood than we had thought. We said to each other that someone needed to ‘do something’ about this situation… After his death… the three of us were asked to organize a symposium in Steve’s memory at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America… We invited students and close colleagues of Steve to participate in this symposium, asking each to explore an aspect of his thought … from the point of view of one who had known well, learned under, and/or worked with him for many years. Our logic was that such people would be more likely to have a clearer-than-average understanding of his thought and its significance… the present volume is the first (and so far only) book to explore critically Steve Gould’s numerous and varied scientific and intellectual contributions… and what their long-term impact may be on our understanding of the history of life… In some sense it is intended as a ‘reader’s guide’ to Gould.” (Pg. vii-viii)
Warren D. Allmon suggests, “Steve caused a lot of his own problems. Much of the criticism that PE [punctuated equilibrium] received was (and is) unjustified, but some resulted from confusion sown by Steve himself. This was not… because he was ducking and dodging, changing his views to fit whatever would work. It was largely because… he rapidly ran PE to (and perhaps beyond) its logical extremes, and also because he used hyperbole and incendiary language, even when he should have known better… Yet despite his admission that his earlier rhetoric might have been a bit excessive and even confusing at times, it is striking that Steve continued even as late as 2002 to make exactly the same kind of extreme statements.” (Pg. 15, 17)
He adds, “At first glance, Steve appears to have shared completely the atheistic and materialist view of critics of religion such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett…. He also repeatedly and stridently denied that science or nature (or, by implication, God) could be the source of human values or ethics, because almost ANY message can be (and had been) so derived… This philosophy was straight out of both Darwin and Enlightenment humanism… Yet Steve did not engage in the strident criticism of religion for which Dawkins and Dennett are well known… Instead, he put forth what … he called ‘non-overlapping magisteria,’ or NOMA… This view held that science and religion occupy separate but equal realms of human endeavor… and neither could or should make claims on the other’s legitimate domain of influence… NOMA, however, did not fare very well among theologians or philosophers… The basic reason lay in Steve’s definition of religion… [he] had to define religion in a way that excluded much of that religious people value, namely a caring God with supernatural powers.” (Pg. 39-41)
He points out, “While the abundant evidence for stasis provides ample empirical confirmation of at least a core of PE, the continuing paucity of evidence for species selection… appears to me to be a serious problem, one that Steve did not adequately acknowledge… there are by my count EXACTLY THREE well-documented examples of species selection, and all are more than twenty years old… I (as a fairly sympathetic observer) still find the paucity of evidence to be at least strongly suggestive evidence of paucity.” (Pg. 60-61)
Dana H. Geary explains, “During the late 1980s and into the 1990s, Steve softened his rhetoric and spent considerable effort trying to explain what he had and had not meant…. The notion that PE now implied a modest expansion of neodarwinian theory rather than its burial, led his critics to characterize this final stage as a retreat… Steve’s deep frustration with this literature stems from what he sees as a misrepresentation of his views… The misrepresenations, when repeated often enough, made his later denials sound like a retreat… Similarly, critics pounced upon Steve’s supposed endorsement of [Richard] Goldschmidt saltationism… claiming that he was also attempting to revise our notions of microevolutionary mechanics.” (Pg. 133-134)
Another essay observes, “Steve had genuine doubts about some of the substantive claims of modern environmentalism, and therefore seemingly could not convince himself that the environmental crisis was real, or at least that it was/is as big a crisis as some environmentalists suggested.” (Pg. 159)
Patricia H. Kelley states, “Gould misjudged creationism as a ‘uniquely American’ phenomenon. Within the United States, Gould… also misjudged creationism to be a marginal, minority form of Christianity that was characteristically southern, rural, and poor. This conclusion is perhaps understandable based on the notoriety southern states have gained for their antievolution/pro-creationism activities… Ronald Numbers… has convincingly argued, however, that the popular stereotype of the American South as uniquely and traditionally hostile to evolution is incorrect.” (Pg. 182)
She adds, “Though Steve mellowed with time (he even thanked me when I told him he was in my prayers, a few weeks before his untimely death), he never understood the importance of faith in the believer’s life. At best, he viewed it as a psychological crutch in a world that can be overwhelming with hardship, tragedy, and confusion.” (Pg. 186)
Robert M. Ross notes, “As many have suggested about his writings, his lectures seem to have lost their focus over the years… Student ratings of Gould’s effectiveness as a lecturer declined over the course of the two decades that he taught… even as the average rating for Harvard professors increased slightly. Having been one of the most popular lecturers on campus in the early 1980s, by the late 1990s he was rated below average.” (Pg. 248)
This is a very insightful book, that will be “must reading” for anyone who wants to know more about the “background” of Gould’s ideas.
The editors wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “Although Steve Gould’s death on May 20, 2002, provided the immediate impetus for this book, its original motivation came from a review of his book ‘Structure of Evolutionary Theory,’ published just before his death. That review… suggested to us that Steve’s science was even more widely misunderstood than we had thought. We said to each other that someone needed to ‘do something’ about this situation… After his death… the three of us were asked to organize a symposium in Steve’s memory at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America… We invited students and close colleagues of Steve to participate in this symposium, asking each to explore an aspect of his thought … from the point of view of one who had known well, learned under, and/or worked with him for many years. Our logic was that such people would be more likely to have a clearer-than-average understanding of his thought and its significance… the present volume is the first (and so far only) book to explore critically Steve Gould’s numerous and varied scientific and intellectual contributions… and what their long-term impact may be on our understanding of the history of life… In some sense it is intended as a ‘reader’s guide’ to Gould.” (Pg. vii-viii)
Warren D. Allmon suggests, “Steve caused a lot of his own problems. Much of the criticism that PE [punctuated equilibrium] received was (and is) unjustified, but some resulted from confusion sown by Steve himself. This was not… because he was ducking and dodging, changing his views to fit whatever would work. It was largely because… he rapidly ran PE to (and perhaps beyond) its logical extremes, and also because he used hyperbole and incendiary language, even when he should have known better… Yet despite his admission that his earlier rhetoric might have been a bit excessive and even confusing at times, it is striking that Steve continued even as late as 2002 to make exactly the same kind of extreme statements.” (Pg. 15, 17)
He adds, “At first glance, Steve appears to have shared completely the atheistic and materialist view of critics of religion such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett…. He also repeatedly and stridently denied that science or nature (or, by implication, God) could be the source of human values or ethics, because almost ANY message can be (and had been) so derived… This philosophy was straight out of both Darwin and Enlightenment humanism… Yet Steve did not engage in the strident criticism of religion for which Dawkins and Dennett are well known… Instead, he put forth what … he called ‘non-overlapping magisteria,’ or NOMA… This view held that science and religion occupy separate but equal realms of human endeavor… and neither could or should make claims on the other’s legitimate domain of influence… NOMA, however, did not fare very well among theologians or philosophers… The basic reason lay in Steve’s definition of religion… [he] had to define religion in a way that excluded much of that religious people value, namely a caring God with supernatural powers.” (Pg. 39-41)
He points out, “While the abundant evidence for stasis provides ample empirical confirmation of at least a core of PE, the continuing paucity of evidence for species selection… appears to me to be a serious problem, one that Steve did not adequately acknowledge… there are by my count EXACTLY THREE well-documented examples of species selection, and all are more than twenty years old… I (as a fairly sympathetic observer) still find the paucity of evidence to be at least strongly suggestive evidence of paucity.” (Pg. 60-61)
Dana H. Geary explains, “During the late 1980s and into the 1990s, Steve softened his rhetoric and spent considerable effort trying to explain what he had and had not meant…. The notion that PE now implied a modest expansion of neodarwinian theory rather than its burial, led his critics to characterize this final stage as a retreat… Steve’s deep frustration with this literature stems from what he sees as a misrepresentation of his views… The misrepresenations, when repeated often enough, made his later denials sound like a retreat… Similarly, critics pounced upon Steve’s supposed endorsement of [Richard] Goldschmidt saltationism… claiming that he was also attempting to revise our notions of microevolutionary mechanics.” (Pg. 133-134)
Another essay observes, “Steve had genuine doubts about some of the substantive claims of modern environmentalism, and therefore seemingly could not convince himself that the environmental crisis was real, or at least that it was/is as big a crisis as some environmentalists suggested.” (Pg. 159)
Patricia H. Kelley states, “Gould misjudged creationism as a ‘uniquely American’ phenomenon. Within the United States, Gould… also misjudged creationism to be a marginal, minority form of Christianity that was characteristically southern, rural, and poor. This conclusion is perhaps understandable based on the notoriety southern states have gained for their antievolution/pro-creationism activities… Ronald Numbers… has convincingly argued, however, that the popular stereotype of the American South as uniquely and traditionally hostile to evolution is incorrect.” (Pg. 182)
She adds, “Though Steve mellowed with time (he even thanked me when I told him he was in my prayers, a few weeks before his untimely death), he never understood the importance of faith in the believer’s life. At best, he viewed it as a psychological crutch in a world that can be overwhelming with hardship, tragedy, and confusion.” (Pg. 186)
Robert M. Ross notes, “As many have suggested about his writings, his lectures seem to have lost their focus over the years… Student ratings of Gould’s effectiveness as a lecturer declined over the course of the two decades that he taught… even as the average rating for Harvard professors increased slightly. Having been one of the most popular lecturers on campus in the early 1980s, by the late 1990s he was rated below average.” (Pg. 248)
This is a very insightful book, that will be “must reading” for anyone who wants to know more about the “background” of Gould’s ideas.
Read
September 27, 2009science
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews