An Urchin in the Storm: Essays About Books and Ideas

by Stephen Jay Gould

"What pleasure to see the dishonest, the inept, and the misguided deftly given their due, while praise is lavished on the deserving―for reasons well and truly stated."― Kirkus Reviews Ranging as far as the fox and as deep as the hedgehog (the urchin of his title), Stephen Jay Gould expands on geology, biological determinism, "cardboard Darwinism," and evolutionary theory in this sparkling collection.

Genres: Science, Essays, Nonfiction, Evolution, Biology, History, Natural History

256 pages, Paperback

First published October 17, 1988

About the author

Stephen Jay Gould was a prominent American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Most of Gould's empirical research was on land snails. Gould helped develop the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary stability is marked by instances of rapid change. He contributed to evolutionary developmental biology. In evolutionary theory, he opposed strict selectionism, sociobiology as applied to humans, and evolutionary psychology. He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.

Many of Gould's essays were reprinted in collected volumes, such as Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb, while his popular treatises included books such as The Mismeasure of Man, Wonderful Life and Full House.
-Wikipedia

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Years ago I was walking out of my local library with one of Gould’s books of essays – which this one isn’t, by the way, this is a series of his book reviews. It was to be the first of his books I was to read. A man stopped me and told me that he had just returned the book I was about to read. He told me he was a creationist, but an open-minded one, prepared to read things by people who didn’t just share his beliefs. But that he hadn’t been able to finish the book I was borrowing because its message was pure nonsense. Needless to say, I found the essays so fascinating that I went on to read book after book by Gould.

Early in this book he provides what has become one of my new favourite quotes:

“I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me.”

― Max Reger

Book reviews are strange things. A well-written book review can be more enjoyable than the book it was written about. Some are more informative than many books are too – this isn’t going to be one of those reviews. But the writers of reviews really do get the raw end of the stick. They are far too often accused of being parasites – I think this is a pity. There are any number of people on this site who write wonderful book reviews on books I would no more dream of reading than flying to the moon. Not because they say awful things about the books in their reviews, necessarily – but rather because I’m just never likely to get the time to read those books. That there are people I can rely on to read them for me and to give me enough information about them to be getting on with is one of the many things I really do love about this site.

Gould’s reviews are also particularly good. Admittedly, I am unlikely to read any of the books he reviews here – even the ones that he raves about. Although I have read Not In Our Genes and particularly liked that, as did he.

Large parts of this book are attacks on what he calls the adaptionist trend in modern biology. That is, the belief that any feature a creature has must have evolved and evolved for a purpose. No, it is actually worse than this, it must have evolved for the current use the creature puts it to. As he says repeatedly, referring to Voltaire’s Candide, such views assume we live in the best of all possible worlds. Then such ‘facts’ need a just-so-story to explain the evolutionary advantage they provide the creature. It is clear this gets under Gould’s skin. His point is that evolution doesn’t come up with the best of all possible solutions, it comes up with the solution that works given what is available to the creature to work with.

Another book I’ve read recently discusses the evolution of the eye. There are two basic ways the very early part of evolution of the eye can go – light sensitive cells can either bulge out (and you end up with a compound eye – like insects) or it can dip in (and you eventually end up with an eye with a lens, like ours). The thing is that to see as well as we see you would need to have a compound eye one metre round on the top of you head. This would be somewhat costly for an animal and so no creatures larger than insects have developed that have compound eyes. Whether light sensitive cells dip or bulge hardly seems all that significant at the time – but if they do one and not the other it has consequences. And consequences there is no turning back from. You don’t get the option of going back and starting from scratch. Which is part of the reason why no animal has evolved wheels to move about on. Some solutions are simply closed to evolution, no matter how efficient they might otherwise have proven. All solutions are the present manifestation of an historical process. What was useful once for one purpose may now be used for something completely different. Feathers once used to keep an animal warm are found to increase the air resistance a creature faces, slowing down and making survivable an otherwise fatal fall. Feathers go from being purely for keeping the animal warm to enabling flight.

As he points out, if one was the design some of the features animals have, it would not be hard to offer much better solutions, that is, if one could start with a blank sheet of paper – and that’s his point. For evolution the problems change, but you don’t get a blank sheet of paper with which to design your answer. Often you just have to make do.

There are quite a few of these reviews about socio-biology. One of my particular favourites gets stuck in to Fritjof Capra – so, all in all, this was good clean fun. I particularly enjoyed his discussion of dialectics. And quite a lot of this book is concerned with debunking IQ - as with his Mismeasure of Man - a book I can't recommend too highly.

I enjoyed this book, perhaps not as much as I have previously enjoyed his essays, but these reviews still make for interesting reading all the same.

[aPriL does feral sometimes · Rating 5 out of 5]

''An Urchin in the Storm" is a collection of book reviews written by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould for the New York Review of Books. Among the books reviewed are biographies of scientists as well as science history and new science discoveries (up to 1987, when this book was published). Of course, as all fans of Gould know, he writes from the viewpoint of his long-standing focus that Charles Darwin began the most likely rational way to view the history of life on Earth - evolution - and naturally, I complete agree. That said, Gould is a terrific writer and an intellectual, able to discuss the intricacies of biological discoveries and evolutionary theories, which includes trying to explain mathematical formulas on occasion.

One of things I found shocking in these reviews is the small number of modern science books which have been published which describe crackpot and discredited ideas and discoveries with very little reproducible results. However, there is some value in this. It is illuminating how science can go honestly or dishonestly wrong. Gould doesn't back off from discussing the ideas in these books, or in the other more legitimate science books. He highlights those areas and ideas where he differs in opinion, and in the case of the crackpots, he does not spare feelings. Whatever. He has an uncanny knack of making every subject of a book under review fascinating as well as illuminating.

The book is divided into five sections:

-Evolutionary Theory
-Time and Geology
-Biological Determinism
-Four Biologists
-In Praise of Reason

One of the things I admire about Gould is that he does not stop at presenting only his rebuttal ideas or conclusions when he is in disagreement with a book's ideas or theories, or thinks he has seen a flaw in an experiment or something left out of a history. He always scrupulously presents fully everyone's ideas and experiments as they have been described in the books he is reviewing, and he always give credit where credit is due. Gould is so thorough I don't feel any need to check out the books he reviewed! Maybe it is my bad, but it is much easier to read Gould's ten-page reviews, add-ons and conclusions then to pick up the 600-800 page biography or science theory or history book. Just saying.

There is an Index.

[Juanita Rice · Rating 5 out of 5]

These book reviews by Stephen Jay Gould first appeared from 1963 to 1987 in The New York Review of Books, a doughty publication if there ever was one, but Gould manages to hold to his infinitely readable style even in the company of the sometimes somewhat grandiose pontificators there. (I mean that in the friendliest of humor for I quite enjoy NYRB. ) And humor, as always with Gould, is a strength in these ruminations, which use book reviewing as another point of entry to lucid and persuasive philosophical gambits. The humor is spiced with drawings by David Levine.

From 19th-century attempts to find anatomical evidence of hierarchies of race and gender (which merits full and detailed examination in Gould's The Mismeasure of Man) to Carleton Coon's theory of separate human origins, Robert Ardrey's distortions of Australopithecus discoveries, and William Shockley's scaled "racial ratios of IQ," Gould is a kind of flawless GPS to orient the public in the foreign lands of scientific claims. Moreover in spite of accidents and arguments, passions and fashions, Gould's voice and persona retain composure. Although he admits to experiencing anger and disgust and grief at times, he keeps his wits and stands his ground. At the precise point where I become often literally speechless at what seem to me "lies, damned lies, and more lies," Gould proceeds with dignity and a lethal logic to articulate the precise sources of misrepresentations, distortions and misunderstandings. He is thus a model of patient and immovable resistance to the hysterical and antirational. What a gift to spend a couple of hours in his company.

And he has, it seems, "world enough and time," at the tip of his tongue: geological history and social history, biography and biology, the arcana of Bacon, Newton, Hobbes, Descartes, Pascal and Montaigne. He can discourse on Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism and counter it with his own expertise in Darwin verbatim, Darwin in context, and Darwin via Thomas Henry Huxley. He knows the crooks and demagogues just as intimately—concocted "IQ Experiments," the planting of forged "fossil stones" by spiteful colleagues to mislead a German Professor, and other examples of bad faith—hypothesizing about motive, but in the end understanding the human source of all scientific ideas and methods, and the implication of the human heart in interpersonal motives and social ideologies.

The first two sections of the book discuss the "irreducibility of history" and contingency; one strain of argument stresses structuralist and historicist alternatives to what Gould calls "the mistaken functionalist paradigm of adaptation that still [1987] shapes Darwinian theory." His answer to the problems of social images of popular evolutionary teleology is to show how unique and unrepeatable each historic epoch and change has been; i.e., that the path of history was not laid out beforehand as a kind of inevitable "stairway to the stars," if we take the Victorian British Empire to be the major constellation in those stars, or even our illustrious selves.

The third section deals explicitly and directly with the social, political and intellectual ramifications of biological determinism, with essays entitled "Genes on the Brain," "Jensen's Last Stand," and "Nurturing Nature." The books reviewed are Promethean Fire (by Charles L. Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson—yes, that E.O. Wilson), Bias in Mental Testing (by Arthur R. Jensen, yes that Jensen), and, a book he much admires, Not in our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature (by R.C.Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon J. Kamin) respectively.

Throughout, the book is Gould's plea for rationalism, lamenting "the perilous slide from our current ignorance into a glorification of the nonrational." A recurring target here, as will be true in much of his writing to come over the next dozen years, is "NeoDarwinism," an image or interpretation of Darwinian natural selection that posits a history of "progress" and "teleology," viewing the evolution of humans as if it were the only path, or even a major one, and then calls that path "progress" from lower to higher, from formlessness to complexity. Such a path, of course, would allow one to have credence in Francis Fukuyama's 1989 proposal of "The End of History." Such a version of the grand positive conqueror's history always brings to my mind the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon strip in which Calvin is gratified to realize the grand scheme of the universe, which was all "to produce me!!´ He spreads his arms to say, "Now I'm here and history is vindicated." (Watterson, 1991: Scientific Progress Goes Boink!)

Gould's range of knowledge and interest allows him to spice this rich ideological meandering with references from Kurt Vonnegut and Dorothy Sayers to Groucho and Karl, from Gilbert & Sullivan to Gunnar Myrdal. He gives special attention to dissecting the spurious rise of the idea of a "well-known 80-20 split" between the influences of nature (inherited and ineradicable and unavoidable genetics) and nurture (education and environment)—a mythical belief that is pretty well laid to firm and not-so-gentle rest as one of many fallacies of "hereditarian" arguments for the source of complex human social behaviors. Gould deplores the continued implicit dependence on such debunked data of, for instance, the fraudulent claims of Sir Cyril Burt with which racialist "scientists" like Arthur Jensen and others pad their claims with "It has been shown..." and "Studies have revealed..." He explicitly praises the book Not in our Genes for going beyond the debunking of determinist claims--e.g., about IQ and various artificial measurements for determining social value and hierarchical placement--and attempting a useful model of the actual, and intricate, interactions of culture and biology.

Human frailty (call it prejudice or venality) will "infect" scientific claims, data, and so-called discovery, which is not to say that there is nothing useful or valid about science, but often not what the public thinks. Just as Quantum Physicists admit that any attempt to observe, witness, record, or measure phenomenon will influence the results, there is no disconnect between observer and observed. (Which Buddhist philosophy has always posited.) When there is observation, there is presence. Human presence. Which changes "things." Stephen Jay Gould would—and did—claim that the best we can do is to put our beliefs, fears, and expectations under the microscope of our consciousness to find out where our biasses lie, and then do our best to disprove the very conclusions we like so well. If nothing else, we should communicate our social, personal and ideological position in order to at least alert the reader's caution.

[Vittoria · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5
Fuori dalla mia comfort zone, ma comunque coinvolgente e piacevole, anche grazie alla penna di Gould

[Claire Binkley · Rating 2 out of 5]

My opinions on this rose and fell as time wore on, as you may have seen on my mini-reviews of the pages. I'm settling on an even keel - nothing to lose sleep over, even though this fellow was a well-known figure who taught at Harvard University, as well as a Visiting Research Professor at New York University and worked at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

I liked some of the ideas earlier on in the book, but later on, it began to bamboozle me more and more - this possibly may have been more due to my own deleterious health than anything else...

So I think this is an OK book! I will probably come back to it later.

[Jamil · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think Stephen Jay Gould will be remembered as one of the most brilliant natural scientists of his time, and probably for long time to come. Gould had a regular column in the NY review of books and this is a collection of those articles. As Gould says in the preface, these aren't "reviews" in the common usage of the term. "That so many book reviews are petty, pedantic, parochial, pedestrian (add your own p's and q's, querulous, quotidian, quixotic)—so much so that they have folded what might be an honorable genre into their gripping nastiness—strikes me as a sadness that might not lie beyond hope of reversal." Instead, Gould treats his contributions as essays in themselves, and consequently we are treated to "another type of book review—one that uses another writer's work as an anchor for discussing an issue of wider scope." (p. 10)

And there are so many intriguing and interesting ideas presented in this book that you can't help feeling like a "polymath" yourself by the time you finish. Gould touches on some common themes—such as racist strains within science (notably a critique of "The Bell Curve" by Jensen) and incisive analysis of sociobiology and human evolution—and, because of his stubborn (and thus consistent point of view), it even reads more like a book instead of a collection.

I was especially surprised to find that he considered G. E. Hutchinson "unquestionably the world's greatest living ecologist" (at the time; p. 180): this is the same man that my advisor in limnology, professor John T. Lehman at the University of Michigan, studied closely with. I saw many pictures, read many papers, and had many discussions about Hutchinson with Dr. Lehman and it was a delight to read Gould's thoughts about him.

Happy reading,

R. Jonna

[Serdar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gould wasn't just a great explainer, but a great critic of the work of others, and this is your proof. I came away from this with recommendations for at least three other books to track down, and that for me is the highest praise I can give to someone reviewing works of both popular and specialized science.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

BOOK REVIEWS, BUT MUCH MORE, FROM THE FAMED EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST

[NOTE: page numbers refer to the 255-page paperback edition.]

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) wrote in the Preface to this 1987 book, "Each of these chapters uses an individual book to pursue a general theme, but organizes its discussion as a critique of content."

Of E.O. Wilson's 'Sociobiology," he says, "human sociobiology must be the most peculiar of self-proclaimed revolutions in science. We usually reserve this label for new structures of ideas ... Human sociobiology, by contrast, only raided one field with the unmodified tools of another. Moreover... sociobiology wielded the most orthodox version of these tools at the same moment that its parent discipline, evolutionary theory, had begun to reassess the very principles invoked to fuel the revolution in human nature. Human sociobiology worked by an untenable extension of flawed (even broken) tools into uncongenial territory." He admits, "As a severe critic of sociobiology from its inception, I clearly am not an impartial observer." (Pg. 28-29)

In another review, he argues that "In the simplistic scenario of hero=uniformitarian=empiricist vs. villain=catastrophist=theological apologist, Cuvier falls among the damned because his belief in rapid changes supposedly upheld an earth of limited antiquity, and God's direct role in geological history. In fact, none of the great catastrophists followed Moses, and their method was more rigidly empirical than that favored by any uniformitarian. They believed what they saw in the rocks---abundant evidence of catastrophe in faulting, tilting of strata, mass extinction, and abrupt change of inferred environment." (Pg. 101-102)

While reviewing Richard Lewontin's 'Not in Our Genes,' he notes, "Leftist scientists are more likely to combat biological determinism just as rightists tend to favor this quintessential justification of the status quo as intractable biology... If we thought that biological determinism was pernicious but correct, we would live with it as we cope with the fact of our impending death. We have campaigned vigorously against this doctrine because we regard determinist arguments primarily as bad biology---and only then as devices used to support dubious policies." (Pg. 151)

Concerning Robert Jastrow's 'The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe,' he comments, "I criticize two aspects of Jastrow's basic argument. First, even if life evolved as he states, this supposed directionality offers no guarantee of predictable continuity and advance in the transition from man to machine... Second, and more important, where is the 'inexorable trend toward greater intelligence' that dominates Jastrow's biological vision? Most multicellular creatures are insects, doing very well thank you, and destined to outlive us, but not illustrating any temporal increase in intelligence to match their longstanding success. And each of our intestinal tracts contains more E. coli than the earth houses people. They will be with us at least until our intellectual essences enter those silicon chips. Life is a ramifying bush with millions of branches, not a ladder." (Pg. 211)

He adds, "Jastrow and a few other astronomers have tried to find God in the universe by reading the big bang as the cosmological equivalent of Genesis. I confess that I have found it hard to take this argument seriously. The big bang may have created OUR universe... it may have obliterated the history of previous worlds... But an inability to reconstruct previous universes does not argue for their necessary nonexistence. We can only say that we do not know; the issue of whether the universe contains enough matter to contract again (pulsating versus unique big-bang theories) remains unsolved. If scientists should not play God, they should stop trying to find God as well. The inquiry may be legitimate, but not as part of science." (Pg. 212-213)

In reviewing Fritjof Capra's 'The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture,' he states, "why must ALL of Capra's examples lie so pointedly in the realm of the nonrational? Am I so peculiar because some of my greatest emotional highs have accompanied my understanding of a bit of nature's complexity... I thought that Capra and I would be kindred spirits, since we maintain a similar commitment to a holistic and hierarchical perspective. Yet I found myself getting more and more annoyed with his book, with its facile analogies, its distrust of reason, its invocation of fashionable notions." (Pg. 225)

He points out that Jeremy Rifkin "dismisses Darwinism as a tautology: fitness is defined by survival, and the catch phrase 'survival of the fittest' reduces to 'survival of those that survive'---and therefore has no meaning. Darwin resolved this issue by defining fitness as predictable advantage before the fact, not as recorded survival afterward (as we may predict the biomechanical improvements that might help zebras outrun or outmaneuver lions; survival then becomes a testable consequence of good design)." (Pg. 232-233)

He adds, "[Rifkin] cites the British physiologist Gerald Kerkut's 'Implications of Evolution,' a book written to refute the factual claim that all living creatures have a common ancestry, and to argue instead that life may have arisen several times from chemical precursors---an issue not addressed by Darwinism. (Creationist lawyers challenged me with the same misunderstanding during my cross-examination at the Arkansas 'equal time' trial five years ago.)" (Pg. 234)

In the final essay, he critiques the idea of a universal flood of Noah: "Why, then---no place anywhere on this vast earth---do we find dinosaurs and large mammals in the same strata; why are trilobites never with mammals, but always in strata below? One might argue that dumb dinosaurs were less skilled at avoiding flood waters than bright mammals, and got buried earlier. One might claim that trilobites, as denizens of the ocean, were entombed before terrestrial mammals. But why are they never found with whales? Surely some retarded elephant would be keeping company with dinosaurs, some valiant trilobite swimming hard for thirty-nine days and winning an exalted upper berth with mammals." (Pg. 246)

Besides being a highly creative evolutionary theorist, Gould was also a brilliant writer and an engaged "public intellectual." His presence is sorely missed on the scientific and literary scene.

[Thijs · Rating 3 out of 5]

A so-so collection of essays by Stephen J. Gould.

I do not wholly agree with his theories (it is illogical to say with Punctuated Equilibrium, that only if external factors change evolution can take place, and otherwise it is unaffected. Mutations happen, and if there is a use for them, they will be adapted. It is true that the more new open nieches there are, the more easily these are exploited. But it does not happen solely during Punctuated Equilibrium).

And other things he shoots of, such Adaptionism, are a legitimate way of looking at parts of an organism. What purpose do they serve? What purpose have they served? And how did it this arise?

Also his essays on the biographies of certain famous scientists feel out of place. If you want to learn about them, why not read the biographies themselves?

[Karen GoatKeeper · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scientists write lots of books about lots of subjects. Gould takes a look at some of them and reviews them and their topics in this book of essays. The science is fairly serious making some difficult to follow without a strong science background.
Some essays were tedious. Others were fun. One in particular has me pulling a couple of other books off my shelves to read soon.
The topics range from sociobiology (bunk) to geology to biologists interesting to become acquainted with to topics very much in the news today.
Have a dictionary handy to look up unfamiliar terms. Gould has a very large vocabulary and uses it. That aside and that three essays were deadly reading, the book is good reading especially his experiences with Creationism and evangelical agendas.

[Bibliomama · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m counting this as read, even though I only quickly skimmed some of the chapters. I’m giving it 4 stars because the chapters I enjoyed I really enjoyed. They included the reviews of biographies of Barbara McClintock and the African American scientist EE Just, who I’d never of, and the autobiography by the physicist Freeman Dyson. And of course, the chapter on the panda and how it “fits”.

[Brad H · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting collection of writings on a variety of areas of Science. Some of the writings are much better than others.

[Milt · Rating 4 out of 5]

thorough plethora of eruditics to ponder throughout. NYReview of Books critiques equally puncturated.

[Dave Clarke · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful anthology of book reviews by Gould, who used them as a vehicle to educate and often that intended audience would include the authors themselves

[Freddie Zu Wied]

Will revisit this. SJG really loves special words and being a famous scientist, but maybe he deserves to.

Learned about pandas and about intelligence - left feeling more stupid than ever

[Cindy Dyson Eitelman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted to give this 4-1/2 stars because it deserves better than a four; I'm not allowed to use fractions; and I just can't--honestly--give it a 5. I just didn't enjoy it as much as the other two of his books I've read. I'm not sure if it's me or the book--could be me--my brain's not as sharp as it used to be and my vocabulary scores are falling. It was hard.

Halfway through, I was even considering removing this from my bookshelf...and then I read the last three essays--

Keeping it. I want to read this again some day:

Perhaps the asteroids Dyson hopes to colonize are miserable, useless hunks of rock. Perhaps we will exterminate ourselves before we ever get there. But Lord help us if we lose interest.

The essay Integrity and Mr. Rifken kind of gave me the creeps. I wouldn't dare to argue with such an esteemed thinker...but then, I don't dare *not* to argue, do I? I kind of think Mr. Gould would appreciate it.

He writes,

If we could, by transplanting a bacterial gene, confer disease or cold resistance on an important crop plant, should we not do so in a world where people suffer so terribly from malnutrition?

Well...we can. And we have. We're especially motivated to transplant a gene to make corn plants resistant to the herbicide Round-Up. And when we do, we learn again and again--

we don't know what we're doing

We end up with high levels of glyphosate in the food supply. We end up with "golden rice"--"super weeds"--an epidemic of gluten intolerance. (Okay, the high level of gluten in modern wheat isn't the result of genetic engineering but rather of selective breeding for high protein content, but it's still a prime example of science ignoring sense.)

I'm not arguing "don't do it" but I am arguing, "think about the side-effects." Test the results before dumping them on hungry people. The cheapest way to feed the hungry would be to send them high fructose corn syrup and hydrolized corn protein. It's especially cheap when you don't add the cost of the taxpayer-subsidized petroleum.

So, back to the book. IMHO, it's a book to be savored, not gulped. Enjoy the occasional crossword puzzle moment. For example,

Long before P. T. Barnum drew the correct equation between the birth of suckers and the passage of minutes...

Huh? Oh! There's a sucker born every minute.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

It made me think thinky thoughts almost every chapter, which is quite something to say about a collection of book reviews. Gould may at times be a bit linguistically complex, which can be off-putting when you're tired and just want to get through the page before bed so you can find your place better in the morning. He is fond of his clauses. Also, the author's personality is definitely in full evidence, a touch brash and definitely opinionated. There were a few times I found myself rolling my eyes, "Stephen, really, I get it - stop beating the anti-reductionist drum."

Of the 17 or so books reviewed, I've only read one - John McPhee's _Basin and Range_, and so it's not surprising that I enjoyed that essay the best. But these are not really book reviews as we know them, or as I'm trying to type here, but rather essays on topics the books bring up for our author, particularly touching on his chosen field of evolutionary biology. There were a few familiar texts sprinkled in there, from Candide to Richard Dawkins, and I was amused to find references to two books I'd read this year. (S.J.G. would be quick to point out this doesn't mean my reading program was designed to prepare me for the references in this latest book.)

[Gunnar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid collection of various Gould essays, mostly published by the New York Review of Books. Lots of details and context is sometimes lacking, so be patient. But vigilance will pay off in better understanding of evolution. And not the pseudo-understanding of the mainstream. His regular books are probably better. But this is a nice sampling of his ideas.

[Phil Mullen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Used this for bus reading in my 1st yr. of living at the Hickman. The complexities of a given article leave my memory pretty quickly ... but the reading is often pretty rewarding (in the way one enjoys a really *good* lecture). I'd gladly read another S J Gould essay collection ... but not immediately.

[Bevan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am very partial to Gould, having read most of his books. This book contains reviews of titles from various authors, among them E.O. Wilson, igniting some real fireworks between those supporting theories of sociobiology and others, like Professor Gould, who were very critical. The controversy continues to this day; unfortunately, Dr. Gould is not around to prolong the debate.

[Heman · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is so many years ago that I read (and lost) this book and I remember very little of it, except the interesting title. The story Gould makes up for the title is related to aesop tale of the hedgehog and the fox...except I found out it is not. And he replaces hedgehog with urchin, which is a sea creature he studied. The hedgehog knows one trick and knows it well is the moral of all that.

[Bastian Greshake Tzovaras · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of book reviews written by Stephen Jay Gould. What sounds super boring is a great read, as he not only likes to argue about books, but also does a great job of putting them into a bigger context.

And his rants on socialism, genetic determinism etc. are always fun to read. I wish (evolutionary) biology would have more characters like him.

[Alí Sánchez Ramírez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una compilación de reseñas de libros sobre ciencia, historia y divulgación. Gould conjuga los temas que más le apasionan y los proyecta de forma interseccional y crítica.
Entre la vida de científicos, algunos más conocidos que otros, somos testigos de los contextos sociales y políticos en los que se despliega la ciencia y su rol ambivalente.

[Ken Bishop · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gould reviews other works of natural history and tackles critical reviewers of these works on evolution, genetics, and why some reviews may have had more to do with the author being a woman than the science involved. See my comments on Ever Since Darwin.

[Daphne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Always a joy to read a Gould book. This one is a collection of essays about several books and not-so-famous scientists. I enjoyed most of it. A few essays weren't to my taste, but that's the good thing about essay books - you can skim a few and still enjoy the whole.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gould dispensing overdue thoughtful criticism and praise for academics(?) of natural history. Very enjoyable, some of Gould at his best.

[Brett Berger · Rating 4 out of 5]

not goulds normal essays on evolution, natural history..very interesting.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Paperback

[Caleb · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this, and could enjoy it if I was awake and had a running start. Never look away from the page, however

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gould is always looking for a fight. Makes for good biology.