Scientist And Defender Of Evolution Stephen Jay Gould, 1942-2002
	found on: New York Times (reg req) written by rm421, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Mon 20 May 5:20pm
		"Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard evolutionary theorist who explained evolution to nonscientists, is dead of lung cancer at the age of 60," writes rm421. "Gould was unusual in that he was both a significant theorist (with Niles Eldredge, he developed the controversial theory of 'punctuated equilibrium') and a popularizer whose work was widely read by non-specialists. For more than a quarter of a century, he wrote a column in Natural History magazine, which were collected in a series of best-selling books (including Ever Since Darwin,The Panda's Thumb and Bully for Brontosaurus.) His essays discussed important ideas about the nature of life, and the social and historic context of science, as well as baseball, Gilbert & Sullivan, and the evolution of Mickey Mouse."

	"Despite his failing health, he remained active: his last two books were published in the last two months, including I Have Landed, the last of his collections of essays, which includes his ruminations on September 11, and The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, a 1500-page magnum opus. Also among Gould's accomplishments: He was a key expert witness in the 1981 trial in Arkansas that resulted in the overturning of the state law requiring the teaching of creationism in public schools, and was active in other similar debates, such as the 1999 Kansas Board of Education decision. He was one of the first to be awarded the MacArthur Foundation's "genius grant" (which isn't really called that, but that's how everyone thinks of it). His book, The Mismeasure of Man, was named one of the 100 Best Nonfiction Books of the Century by the Modern Library Board. In 2000 the Library of Congress named Gould one of America's eighty-three Living Legends -- people who embody the "quintessentially American ideal of individual creativity, conviction, dedication, and exuberance." Gould had his detractors (e.g. Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus), but a great many more admirers. Including me. "

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 40 commentsmost: 21 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

2.  Good Thing He Had A Couple Kids, After All...   by mischief       at Mon 20 May 5:38pm score of 2 funny     Where would evolution be without his progeny? "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Indeed   by bitter_engineer       at Tue 21 May 11:32am score of 4 funny   in reply to comment 2     If anyone ever deserved a Darwin Award, it would be Stephen Jay Gould. Wait a second, that didn't come out right... Non estat prandium gratuitum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  "The Panda's Thumb"...   by MAYORBOB       at Mon 20 May 6:14pm score of 1     was the first Gould book I ever read. It helped a scientifically challenged middle ager, such as myself, to gain a bit of an understanding about what had been a totally opaque subject. What a great and brilliant mind. With Gould and Sagan, we have lost two brilliant scientists with that uncanniest of abilities -- the ability to communicate. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  Re: "The Panda's Thumb"...   by kilroy       at Tue 21 May 10:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     With Gould and Sagan, we have lost two brilliant scientists with that uncanniest of abilities -- the ability to communicate Absolutely. It's a shame that more scientists aren't willing or able to communicate with the unwashed masses as well as those two. Very few people with such a mass of knowledge are willing to spend their time explaining concepts that seems so basic to them. Communicating ideas to the uneducated is not just intellectual slumming. Gould, for one, actually understood this. Rest in peace. You think people will still be using napkins in the year 2000? Or is this mouth vacuum thing for real?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Fond memories of reading Gould   by milo_foo       at Mon 20 May 6:25pm score of 1     I started reading Gould's books at the local library after I declared a biology major, and eventually joined the museum and subscribed to Natural History so I could read Gould's column, This View of Life. A few summers later I got a job doing field research at the American Museum of Natural History's Southwestern Research Station in Portal, Arizona. It's located in a riparian habitat in one of the canyons in that area. There's a lodge building there where we ate dinner. The lodge has two porches; one porch out the front has a piano, and the other has a bunk bed, chair, board games and stacks of old Natural History magazines. In the heat of mid-day I'd escape to the side porch and devour Gould's essays. I started reading them from the earliest dates. At some point the essays began repeating, and I realized that that was the time when Gould was fighting cancer. Then as I went through the issues Gould started writing new essays again and I knew he was OK.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Musings of a Kansan   by VagusX       at Mon 20 May 6:43pm score of 5 brilliant     [-1, Incoherent] I was an Undergrad at the University of Kansas when our state Board of Education struck evolution (along with plate tectonic theory, global warming theory, and others). Of course, the biology department was in an uproar all summer, but all of our lobbying in Topeka and appeals to local press did little to no good. What eventually got Kansas voters to take a good hard look at the damage that their elected officials did to public education and the reputation of the state (such as it was) was the national media coverage lead by a Stephen Jay Gould article in Time magazine. In fact, Professor Gould was so passionate about our trouble that he came to Kansas and gave a presentation about evolution, among other things. A close friend of mine was privileged enough to eat lunch with Professor Gould the day after the presentation. Of course, as a science fan boy, I required the play by play. According to Pat, they talked about baseball the whole time. Funny thing, really. So, if for no other reason, my eternal thanks go to Dr. Gould for helping us save our state from the sectarian agenda of a few fundamentalists. May he rest in peace. *sniff* "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim" -Publius Ovidius Naso   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  The worst thing about this story...   by PerryStroika       at Mon 20 May 8:25pm score of 3 astute     for me, is that I will no longer have the pleasant surprise of seeing his name on a byline when I'm looking for something to read. His essays were always lucid, witty and just plain enjoyable. Some people accuse him of logorhea. He could be a tad longwinded at times, but the digressions were part of the fun. His legacy as a scientist is still in play. His opposition to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis and his championing of paleontology as an active participant in evolutionary theory are still controversial. In my opinion, much of the snippiness of his critics comes from professional jealousy at his visibility before the public, but the viability of his outlook don't seem to be clear either. Mouthpiece   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  "Lying Stones Of Marakesh"   by Atrax       at Mon 20 May 8:33pm score of 1     and "Dinosaur in a Haystack" currently grace my bookshelf. I've been meaning to get more. I never knew so many things could be so interesting - even SJG's baseball essays, (which I have to say as an expatriate brit I know absolutely zero about) were capivating. He'll be missed, but we can be happy about the contribution he made in completing his essay series. Do something noone else has ever done. Read my blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Was Gould bad for the theory of evolution?   by parcivale       at Mon 20 May 8:36pm score of 2 informative     Not to speak ill of the dead but in the interests of having a fuller, more nuanced perspective of the man here's a rather contrarian perspective on Gould's contributions.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Was Gould bad for the theory of evolution?   by PerryStroika       at Mon 20 May 8:50pm score of 4 astute   in reply to comment 8     There is little merit in Wright's diatribe. Really his only criticism is that Gould has failed to endorse the Neo-Darwinian theories and questioned reducing macro-evolution to micro-evolution, in effect weakening and dividing the evolutionist block in the face of the creationists. Wright's "if you're not with is completely than you're against us" logic reduces evolutionism from science to an issue of tribalistic loyalty, as if the mere act of questioning the mechanisms of evolution were an implicit endorsement of creationism. Wright is an occasionally clever writer, but this piece is just vacuous and stupid finger pointing. Mouthpiece   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Was Gould bad for the theory of evolution?   by PerryStroika       at Mon 20 May 8:55pm score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 10     Oh yeah, and just to turn my perfectly reasonable and even tempered post into a rabid troll...Mickey Kaus is a friggin' turd, exactly the kind of schmuck who would consider Robert Wright a genius. Mouthpiece   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  It's getting awfully lonely out here   by ksu93       at Mon 20 May 8:47pm score of 5 astute     Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and now Stephen Jay Gould. There's an awfully big void being left out there and I have a bad feeling about what's starting to fill it :( "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: It's getting awfully lonely out here   by gr3g       at Tue 21 May 1:41am score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 9     Don't forget Richard Feynman. If Stephen Hawking goes I don't know what I would do. I guess there is Brian Greene. It's tragic to lose people like these. They really helped bring science to the public and make it interesting. You can get more people to go to a Stephen Hawking lecture than a Britney Spears concert (no contest in my opinion, but some people have weird priorities). Stephen Jay Gould you will be missed, for you gave me many a good argument against the Christians at school. --- "In other words, in matters of intelligence evolution selects the least stupid." Joseph Giovannoli "It has always been this way and it won't change, god bless the fucked up USA" The Briefs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Feynman is God   by Blue Dot       at Tue 21 May 10:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Richard Feynman is the best public scientific figure in history. His role as "citizen/scientist" plus his theoretical contributions put him with Einstein. My personal opinion gives Feynman a leg up on every with the possible exception of Newton. Hawking is great as well. Greene has to time to put in before he is on par with either Hawking or Feynman.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  There is another.   by cptnrandy       at Tue 21 May 6:55am score of 3 informative   in reply to comment 9     Try Stephen Pinker - wonderful writer and an honest-to-god scientist. He can take a subject that would appear numbingly boring and make it a fun read and completely understandable. I suggest starting with How The Mind Works, then Words And Rules followed by everything else. I loved Gould's Wonderful Life. He will be missed. Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  And another   by Zoea       at Tue 21 May 12:04pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 20     Also, David Quammen. He writes essays for Outdoor magazine, I think. He's not a scientist himself, but a really great popularizer. Song of the Dodo by Quammen is a must read. But I really will miss SJG. From Wonderful Life to Bully for Brontosaurus his writing was inspirational to me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Scientists as Public Intellectuals   by norska79       at Mon 20 May 9:13pm score of 3 astute     Like VagusX (hi E its EM), I first came to know Gould and his work during a speech he made at the University of Kansas on the heels the wretching evolution decision there. While others may comment on his vast scholarly work, I was struck by his ability to bring rigorous scientific thought to the mainstream. I think his most important contribution to science was not punctuated equilibrium, but bringing real, academic science to educated, but not expert, readers. In my experience, this was crucial to the evolution debate in Kansas. Given that so much of scientific funding comes from the federal government, and given that the government has, well, theoretically limited resources, isn't it in the best interest of scientists to educate the public to create more demand for funding? If so, where are all the other public intellectuals in the sciences? EMS   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Let's not forget his most cherished gift...   by fuel9000       at Mon 20 May 9:44pm score of 2 informative     Punctuated equilibrium, evolutionary theory, etc. is all very nice. But let's not forget what most people know him for. He was in the Simpsons, dammit (sniff, he will be missed). "Lisa the Skeptic" 908 5F05 Original Airdate: 11/23/97 Guest Star: Stephen Jay Gould as himself During an archeological dig in Sabertooth Meadow, the students of Springfield Elementary School unearth a strange skeleton of what appears to be a winged human. Everyone in town believes that it's an angel's skeleton, but Lisa Simpson tries to convince them otherwise. Homer steals the angel and sells tickets for people to visit it in his garage while Lisa chips off a tiny piece of bone and brings it to Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould for examination. The tests are inconclusive, but Lisa is still convinced that the skeleton is not an angel's. When the angel disappears from Homer's garage and reappears on a hill over Springfield with the words "The End Will Come at Sundown" chiseled into its base, everyone is convinced that it's a sign from God. The entire town gathers on the hill to witness "the end," but Lisa remains skeptical. When the angel begins to speak, everyone--including Lisa--shudders in awe. That awe soon disappears when it is revealed that the "angel" is merely a promotional stunt for the Heavenly Hills Mall, a new shopping center. Lisa was right, but as Marge points out, she did get awfully scared when it seemed like the angel was real. Alcohol is my anti-drug.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  bad taste warning   by gerrymander       at Mon 20 May 10:10pm score of 2 funny     After the Onion, an alternate headline: "Dawkins Victorious!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Detractors   by ekr       at Mon 20 May 10:52pm score of 2 informative     If we're going to note detractors, Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus aren't particularly good examples. Rather, I'd mention Dawkins, Maynard Smith and and E. O. Wilson. Gould was involved in a long-running debate with the aforementioned scientists which originally began with the controversy over Wilson's "Sociobiology" but quickly turned into a sort of nasty academic warfare where members of each camp took potshots at whatever the others were doing. As far as I can tell, Gould won in the popular press but the others (especially Maynard Smith) are better regarded in the scientific community. For more information, see the following archive of reviews etc. (on a Dawkins site) or "Defenders of the Truth".   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Re: Detractors   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 21 May 5:39am score of 1 informative   in reply to comment 15     The battle wasn't so much over sociobiology as it was the nature of evolutionary change. Dawkins espouses adaptive genes working continuously over time in organisms. In general. Gould does not deny this, but denies that it can account for the evolution of man. Hence, his periods of rapid chaotic change. Unfortunately, the debate between Gould and Dawkins, Smith, Wilson, Pinker, Dennett, et al will be presented as a battle between humanism and determinism, or something similar. Personally, Gould, in his really big theoretical stuff, doesn't get much right. The shale layer he cites as evidence of the plurality and openness of morphology or whatever has more or less been reexamined and rebutted. In his criticism of sociobiology he seems intent on attacking the Robert Wrights and Charles Murrays of the world, the people who misunderstand five or six areas of science at once and then sell it to an educated readership. Of course, they draw on the fact that scientists such as Wilson who write about human behavior are not really very attentive to it, and pretty much follow the strictures of sociology as it envisions human beings. Gould doesn't challenge this in general. He just lifts up a lame version of human inscrutability and denies sociobiology any legitimacy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Detractors   by PerryStroika       at Tue 21 May 6:49am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 15     "As far as I can tell, Gould won in the popular press but the others (especially Maynard Smith) are better regarded in the scientific community." There is a disciplinary cleavage that's going on there. Gould and his ally Eldredge (who together authored the infamous "Punctuated Equilibrium" paper") are paleontologists, a community that is somewhat isolated from biology. Gould has written about how he felt that paleontology has given up too much to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, that the actual examination of the fossil record was considered as being of little use in evolutionary theory. theory. He said an interview: "It was quite a sacrifice that paleontologists made in the Modern Synthesis. They basically said we'll take your theory if you let us in. That's too much of a sacrifice. There's a lot of macroevolutionary theory that you're only gonna get out of the paleontological record. That's, if anything, why this book exists." Anyway, Gould's stock is not very high among naturalists, geneticists, zoologists, botanists...etc. His view is a minority view there. Among paleontologists-the sort who work at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History-Gould is bigger. Mouthpiece   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Detractors   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 21 May 11:13am score of 1 funny   in reply to comment 19     OK, I just can't let the phrase "disciplinary cleavage" go by without comment. disciplinary cleavage . . . heh . . .   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  the Hungarian Connection   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 21 May 12:20am score of 1 informative     It seems that Stephen Jay Gould, like all the great scientists, was of Hungarian descent. Bassza meg! Pistike, nagyon hiányzol.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  If you want a good laugh ...   by eminem enterprises       at Tue 21 May 8:28am score of 2 brilliant     ... click on the "100 Best Non-Fiction Books" link in the write-up. You'll soon see what I mean. Everybody has a share   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Re: If you want a good laugh ...   by Zal42       at Tue 21 May 8:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     It moved me. I laughed... I cried... Now, I sit in a little fear. No Other Possibility   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: If you want a good laugh ...   by PerryStroika       at Tue 21 May 9:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     "You'll soon see what I mean." I don't know what you mean, and I'd appreciate it if you would elaborate. Mouthpiece   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  The "People's Choice" Awards   by eminem enterprises       at Tue 21 May 10:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     ... running down the RH side. OTOH, these sorts of results are entirely predictable with online polls (assuming that how they conducted it). But I found it funny to see the two lists side by side. It was if the sponsors were saying: "See how stupid or misguided the mass of humanity is. Without us shapers of conventional wisdom, the whole world's going to hell!" That's my take, anyway. Everybody has a share   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  not a good laugh   by profpeach       at Tue 21 May 11:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     more like a terrified smirk. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  For Me   by uncarved block       at Tue 21 May 9:52am score of 2 funny     Gould demonstrated both the ease and difficulty of eliminating racism. The Mismeasure of Man dissects the science behind The Bell Curve absolutely, with both insight and good science. Realizing that this makes NO difference in the long run is rather depressing . . .       OTOH, he gave me one of the funniest undercutting aphorism concerning racial purity I've ever heard. "I feel sorry for those who want to create a pure race, since they're working against the only two demonstrated universal human traits: the desire to travel and the urge to sleep with anybody."       I'll miss the hairy little bastard: he could be annoying, but no less so than his opposition. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Gould's two legacies   by Blue Dot       at Tue 21 May 10:11am score of 1     Gould did play an important role in spreading science and combining two fields, no question. But his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is recognized by most as a fad. Its supporters claimed it solved everything, and used the incompleteness of the fossil record as support--to me, using the 'badness' of the data as support is the sign of an 'easy way out' solution. Now, the idea of micro/macro-evolutions have been used to help describe what we see in the fossil record and in life. But Gould's particular brand was quite a bit off.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  a rare combination   by profpeach       at Tue 21 May 11:02am score of 1     of good scientist (yeah, punctuated equilibrium wasn't the grand cure all theory he and Eldridge thought and Eldridge has been pretty open about his rethinking.) and good writer. His work was a major factor in my deciding to be an ecologist and like someone said upstream, he made evolution intelligible to a (then) outsider. I definitely wouldn't go so far to say that Wilson has won, even among biologists. In the long run, Gould will have had (IMHO) a wider and more generous influence. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]