Talk:Darwin's Dangerous Idea

message: I can't wait to see the novel use he puts 'spandrel' to, since there are four or five accepted and cognate meanings in architectural and art history, all relating to the space between a curved figure and a rectangular boundary - such as the space between the curve of an arch and a rectilinear bounding moulding, or the wallspace bounded by adjacent arches in an arcade and the stringcourse or moulding above them, or the space between the central medallion of a carpet and its rectangular corners...  --MichaelTinkler
:Spandrel was coined by Stephen Jay Gould (not Dennett) in the papper "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme". In a evolution, is a metaphor for caractheristics side effects and not true addaptions to the environment. See: http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/commentary/thurtle.html Joao
Uh, he didn't 'coin' spandrels, and from what you're quoting, Gould actually used it in reference to what I'm talking about - architecture. A quick check of the OED online gives the earliest usage in English in 1477.   For a depiction, see http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/menuglossary/lists.htm#letterS and scroll down for 'spandrel' --MichaelTinkler
Thanks for pointing out it was Gould not Dennett - I'm not saying Gould invented the word - he quite clearly refers to the architectural meanings. I'm claiming he invented the metaphorical usage of 'spandrel' to mean 'feature that is the unintended consequence of other features' with particular relevance to design by evolution. This metaphorical meaning works no matter which kind of architectural spandrel is referred to: the spandrel is the un-designed gap between other features, which is then often exploited for a use of its own. -- The Anome
Actually, the indented part wasn't me.  I was trying to point out without bothering to edit in the cognitive and evolutionary fields (about which I know little and care less) a dangerous tendency - to assume that the earliest mention of a word that one knows is a coinage.  And by the way, Gould is interesting, but he's no art historian;  it's a very loose metaphor. Since spandrels are the WALLS or the elaborated surface of a carpet, they're neither unintentional nor undesigned.  Their elaboration and decoration may not be structural, which is what he's getting at, but, pace functionalists, structural support systems (arches) are not all there is to architecture.  :) --MichaelTinkler
----
Wait a second - Gould doesn't believe in intelligent design, does he?  He may believe in interstices between evolutionary events, but he should leave architecture at San Marco alone, even as a metaphor, because both the arch and the area between the arches were designed by conscious designer.  19th century architectural historians loved to make diagrams of the 'evolution of the pointed arch' and other elements of architecture, but they were metaphorizing, and they knew it.  --MichaelTinkler
You're not nuts; Gould did not believe in ID or any other form of creationism.  However, as good a writer as he was, he nonetheless sometimes gave ammunition to creationists, particularly in terms of their misleading portrayal of evolution as a theory in crisis. Alienus 12:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spandrel

message: From the article: "the principle that Darwinian evolution is the central organising force not only in biology, but also in most other aspects of the Universe, including the human mind"
One of the main points made by Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea is that the human mind evolved by biological evolution. At the start of chapter 13, Dennett gives his materialistic view of mind, "Of course, our minds are our brains...."
I'm not sure if Dennett would be comfortable with the idea that the human mind is some how outside of those aspects of the universe that fall within the domain of biology. Possible introductory sentences:
*In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett makes clear that he finds utility in the idea of memes as units of cultural evolution and he is a strong advocate of the idea that many elements of our culture are adaptive and have been selected by an evolutionary process. 
*In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett contrasts his view of naturalistically evolved mind to the views held by other philosophers who think that evolutionary processes like natural selection cannot account for human language and human mind. Memenen 01:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  relation between the human mind and biology 

message: There doesn't seem to be enough content in Skyhook (concept) to warrant a separate article, and the concept isn't even mentioned here, where it should be.  I propose merging the two articles. Thatcher131 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For merge --Procrastinating@talk2me 10:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I'm finding it hard to see what the actual dispute is between Dennett and Gould from this article. It tells me little more than that Dennett disagrees with Gould for being unscientific, and then quotes great wads of Gould's reply. I can hardly be expected to understand why Gould is so forceful — "Dennett's imperialist hope" is strong language — without more about the actual book. Nor is the essay by Gould from which the quotes are taken likely to be a good way to find out Dennett's side of the argument. topynate 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be too much quoting of Gould in any case. But with the review from Maynard Smith I think we can take down the neutrality tag. Richard001 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennett's view of Gould; Criticism 

message: I quote:
"Dennett asserts that natural selection is a blind and algorithmic process which is sufficiently powerful to account for everything from the laws of physics and the creation of the Universe "
Where does he 'assert' this? show me the page. Seriously, that is a major claim, and I don't think for a second that Dennett has made this in his book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexag1 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds basically like what he said, although I don't remember whether he asserted it was responsible for the creation of the universe and the laws of physics, or just possibly responsible. Richard001 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That response is worse than useless. -- 72.194.23.121 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  major flaws in the intro of the article 

message: Is the series () related to the book?  Can someone create a page for the series?  (I cannot.)  This article points people to the 2001 PBS Evolution series which has an episode called Darwin's Dangerous Idea, but not to the 2009 BBC series called Darwin's Dangerous Idea. 24.57.239.43 (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the series related to the book? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion