From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Rifkin and pointers to "Algeny" review
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:20:21 GMT

Tim Ikeda writes:
[...]
>Read "Algeny" or at least Gould's review; then you'll understand
>my apprehension.  An author's past work should certainly be taken 
>into account when considering their latest creations. In this case
>it is not prose which is important, but substance and credibility.


Stephen J. Gould who has done an admirable job in deflating
the conceits of sociobiology and in making some core notions
of modern evolutionary theory accessible to the laity, is
himself not infallible.  Your good concern cuts both ways.

Daniel Dennett (professor at Tufts University, Center for
Cognitive Studies), as you might know, is a well-published
and very bright philosopher.  It so happens that Daniel
Dennett has recently written a scathing commentary (see THE
NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, 1993, January 14, p. 43-44) in
response to Stephen Gould's own negative review (in the NYR,
Nov. 19, 1992) of Helena Cronin's THE ANT AND THE PEACOCK.

Here are a few things that Daniel Dennett would say about
Stephen Gould:

    As an educator, Stephen Jay Gould has illuminated
    literally hundreds of dark corners of biology for us
    all, but he is also a formidable polemicist whose
    campaigns have BLIGHTED more than a few reputations and
    careers.
    
    Gould's trick is REFUTATION-BY-CARICATURE, and this time
    he exposes himself with stunning efficiency, even
    candidly admitting at one point, that in the past he has
    stooped to caricature of the opposition.
    
Sound familiar?  Certainly we have all witnessed a high 
frequency of this ploy here on the net.  Rifkin being
again the victim of a very bad review from a newletter 
that has been posted here before.  
    
    Gould's basic trick, honed over the years, has a nifty
    second state.  In the first stage, you create the
    STRAWPERSON, and "refute" it (everybody knows that
    trick).  Second (this is the stroke of genius), you
    yourself draw attention to the evidence that you have
    taken the first step -- the evidence that your opponents
    don't in fact hold the view you have attributed to them
    -- but interpret these citations as their grudging
    concessions to your attack!
    
    The tick becomes transparent with overuse, however, and
    Gould has managed to epitomized his career with this
    ploy in the confines of a single article.
    
Daniel Dennett then, as a good critic must, proceeds to
document 3 such glaring examples.  Dennett then ends with
the remark:

    *The Ant and the Peacock* is scholarly and insightful,
    witty and vivid without being bullying.  Gould's review
    of it contains other MISTAKEN OBJECTIONS and
    MISREPRESENTATIONS, but these three cases will do
    handsomely to disarm the rest.
           [emphasis mine]

Well, Daniel Dennett is no intellectual slouch and it looks
like he voicing what some others also have observed about
Stephen Gould's particular style in being a somewhat rash
reviewer of other people's works.  Hey, you can't be good at
everything!

Now, Tim, rather than simply stop at one review of a
published work, it is as you say much better to read the
work in question for yourself.  People really don't read
enough, especially I'm afraid to say, Americans.  Consider
the following:

                        % of People Who Within the
                        Last Year Did NOT Read
                            Even 1 Book!

    USA                         74
    Italy                       68
    Spain                       52
    Australia                   48
    Canada                      45
    Belgium                     45
    Ireland                     40
    France                      38
    Germany                     34
    Austria                     33
    Norway                      30
    UK                          29
    Sweden                      28
    Netherlands                 27
    Denmark                     25
    Switzerland                 19
        (1745-5 data from Euromonitor and Gallup)

I trust that you find this as shocking as I do.  Americans
do in fact spend more money on books than any other nation,
yet most simply don't read books.  Only about 1/5 Swiss
failed to read a book during the past year, but 3/4 of
Americans did not read a single book.  In fact, of those who
did report having read at least 1 book -- one miserable book
-- some people reported things like TV Guide as a book!
Remarkable!

I think that you would agree that task of the today's reviewers
should be to turn people "on" to do some reading; certainly
not presume to serve as a lazy substitute for reading the
book itself.  It is widely acknowledged that THE NEW YORK
REVIEW OF BOOKS provides some very scholarly reviews by
well-known writers and thinkers, like Stephen Gould, but
even here we find rash reviews, Stephen Gould's latest
review being a case in point.

What then, can one expect from some of the ersatz reviews
from less respectable sources we've see posted here on the
net?  Especially these nonacademic reviews railing against
some particular work that reviewer quite clearly evinces an
unscholarly prejudiced towards?  What I expect is that
instead of `book burning' we now have callow `book bashing',
the effect may well be the same in that the book simply does
not get read.  The shame is ours for voluntary ignorance and
a greater shame lies on those who would contribute to this
culture of the unread by dissuading people from reading for
themselves.

Now, I too have a copy of Rifkin's book and I have read
it for myself and can speak from direct knowledge rather than
heresay.  Being also the bibliophile that I am, I also
think I can even speak from good judgement.  Again, for
those interested in the ecological case for vegetarianism
and those interested in a good cultural analysis of the
current wont for eating so much beef, read this most
interesting and readable book.  Professor Paul Ehrlich, the
leading authority on world human overpopulation, say the
following about Rifkin's book:

    "This is a valuable contribution to the battle to
    improve both the ecosystem and human health by reducing
    the dependence of homo sapiens on cattle"

Or consider Brock Evens from the National Audubon Society:

    "This is the most interesting and readable book yet on
    the fascinating subject of the ancient and complex
    relationship between humans and cattle.  Rifkin's genius
    is in his ability to demonstrate convincingly how this
    relationship has badly damaged not only our natural
    landscapes but also our human psyches.  A most for
    anyone who cares about what is happening to our earth."

Present company except, permit me Tim to say that 
glib criticism is more easily dispensed than arriving at a
thoughtful understanding.  We should not be surprised,
therefore, that such destructive criticism has become a
commonplace masquerade for want of informed understanding.

                            Regards,
                                  ted





Newsgroups: rec.food.veg