Talk:Stephen Jay Gould/Archive 3

message: In response to Gleng's comment above, I thought a bit about which scientific points need to be covered.  Taking the Structure to be definitive, I've worked out the following précis of what we might call "Gouldian evolutionary theory":
# Darwinian natural selection, defined as the differential survival of those entities better or worse suited to their environments, operates at multiple levels in the biological hierarchy: at the lowest level among genes all the way up to clades.  Each level of this hierarchy constitutes an evolutionary individual when considered at its appropriate time scale.  There are evolutionary pressures not only among individuals at the same level of the hierarchy, but also between levels; for example, success of a cell line in a complex organism may come at the ultimate cost of the organism's life (viz., cancer).
# The story of macroevolution is the story of the birth and extinction of entire species, and can best be understood as the result of species selection.
# The fossil record is not hopelessly incomplete, as Darwin and many neo-Darwinists suggest, but is in fact a true record of the course of evolution in geological time.
# The dominant mode of macroevolution is characterized by species arriving with geological rapidity (that is, within a single bedding plane) and changing very little for a long period until their ultimate extinction.  This is not an illusion caused by an inadequate fossil record (see above), nor is it an artifact of how paleontologists define species.
# This mode of change is in fact a simple consequence of known microevolutionary mechanism when correctly extrapolated over geological time scales.
# Not every feature of a biological system is adaptive; no organism is perfectly adapted.  No matter how adaptive some conceivable feature may be, it may not be reachable for a variety of reasons.  These constraints include the purely physical (birds would have an easier time flying if they could generate anti-gravity fields—but no such fields exist); the physico-mathematical (e.g., the square-cube law and other constraints on the sizes and shapes of organisms); the developmental (mammalian fetuses must be small enough to pass through their mothers' pelvises at birth); and the historical.
# Historical constraint is the most significant form of constraint, and can result in a life history that is easy to misread as directional.  The raw material of evolution is random variation; even assuming such variations are equiprobable, this process can only generate a finite number of varieties in a finite time.  As a result, many adaptations which are not otherwise precluded simply do not appear because insufficient time has elapsed; objectively inferior adaptations may become entrenched simply because they were easier to reach by random variation from the base state, and once the selective pressure is reduced, so is the impetus for change ("the good is the enemy of the best").  This also explains the deep homologies observed in molecular biology and genome studies.
# Not every feature of a biologial system is adaptive; some features are mere consequences of other features (which themselves may be adaptive or may be no more than historical baggage).  (The canonical example is male nipples, explained as a consequence of the existence of female nipples, combined with the lack of any selective pressure which would cause them to be suppressed in the development of the male anatomy.)  Sometimes, features which originally evolved for non-adaptive reasons may later be co-opted when the environment changes and that feature proves beneficial; the loci of selection and adaptation do not always coincide.  (Such cases are referred to as exaptation.)
Points (1) and (2) come from chapter 8, "Species as Individuals in the Hierarchical Theory of Selection".  Points (3), (4), and (5) come from chapter 9, "Punctuated Equilibrium and the Validation of Macroevolutionary Theory".  The remaining points are a fusion of chapter 10, "The Integration of Constraint and Adaptation (Structure and Function) in Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Historical Constraints and the Evolution of Development", and chapter 11, "The Integration of Constraint and Adaptation (Structure and Function) in Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Structural Constraints, Spandrels, and the Centrality of Exaptation in Macroevolution".
Now, the question then comes, how can we illustrate these points, which it takes Gould 700 pages to set out, in an appropriately encyclopedic way for a general audience.  It's reasonable to look in Gould's essays for his own attempts at explaining his work to others; the trouble is that he generally did not toot his own horn in his essays (preferring, in the main, to confine himself to the history and philosophy of science).  However, a few statements illustrating the general principles are readily available (all of these come from the Wikiquote collection):
For punctuated equilibrium:
: I want to argue that the “sudden” appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it.  ("Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution", Ever Since Darwin, 1977, p. 61)
: The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.” ("The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 182)
: The theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed by Niles Eldredge and myself, is not, as so often misunderstood, a radical claim for truly sudden change, but a recognition that ordinary processes of speciation, properly conceived as glacially slow by the standard of our own life-span, do not resolve into geological time as long sequences of insensibly graded intermediates (the traditional, or gradualistic, view), but as geologically “sudden” origins at single bedding planes.  (Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, 1987, pp. 2–3)
PE and species selection:
:  Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates. We live in a world of structure and legitimate distinction. Species are the units of nature's morphology. ("A Quahog is a Quahog", The Panda's Thumb, p. 213)
On constraint:
: Organisms [...] are directed and limited by their past. They must remain imperfect in their form and function, and to that extent unpredictable since they are not optimal machines. ("Quick Lives and Quirky Changes", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 65)
: A complete theory of evolution must acknowledge a balance between “external” forces of environment imposing selection for local adaptation and “internal” forces representing constraints of inheritance and development.  ("A Hearing for Vavilov", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 144)
: We do not inhabit a perfected world where natural selection ruthlessly scrutinizes all organic structures and then molds them for optimal utility. Organisms inherit a body form and a style of embryonic development; these impose constraints upon future change and adaptation. In many cases, evolutionary pathways reflect inherited patterns more than current environmental demands. These inheritances constrain, but they also provide opportunity.  ("Hyena Myths and Realities", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, p. 156)
: When Bonner writes that “natural selection for optimal feeding is then presumed to be the cause of non-motility in all forms,” I can't help suspecting that some plants might do even better if they could walk from shade to sun—but the inherited constraints of design never permitted a trial of this intriguing option.  ("The Ghost of Protagoras", An Urchin in the Storm, 1987, p. 67)
On the power of selection relative to other forces:
: Our world is not an optimal place, fine tuned by omnipotent forces of selection. It is a quirky mass of imperfections, working well enough (often admirably); a jury-rigged set of adaptations built of curious parts made available by past histories in different contexts. ("Only His Wings Remained", The Flamingo's Smile, 1985, p. 54)
I can't help but include a few quotations on historiography:
: When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents—a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless, completely disappeared from large sectors of the American experience.  ("Non-Overlapping Magisteria", Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, 1998, p. 273
:  I can promise that, although I have frequently advanced wrong, or even stupid, arguments (in the light of later discoveries), at least I have never been lazy, and have never betrayed your trust by cutting corners or relying on superficial secondary sources. I have always based these essays upon original works in their original languages.  (Preface, I Have Landed, 2002, p. 6)
[I moved the NOMA quotation that was here into the article.  121a0012 05:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed restatement 

message: Harvard references and footnotes don't really go together.  We should pick a style and stick with it.  (I'm not fond of the Harvard style and would as soon use proper footnotes, but I believe that Harvard is standard in many of the fields SJG himself worked in.)  I would also suggest that primary-source quotations do not belong in footnotes; if they are that extraneous, they should be trimmed entirely.  121a0012 05:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While I like the Harvard style for my books, end notes are less obtrusive for digitized texts. The synthesis of styles is the result of an evolved article. I've seen it used in print, but its strengths definitely lie in texts which are heavily footnoted. This certainly isn't the case here. As for primary-sourced quotations in end notes, I certainly don't have a problem with this. This is common, and is an effective literary style. Sometimes you have to say something important, or interesting, or marginally relevant, but it just doesn't seem to flow right within the text. My .02 ¢ — Miguel Chavez 07:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference style 

message: There is a perception, alluded to in the discussion above, that while Gould was a remarkably adept and influential writer of popular science, his work as a scientist per se was less notable and much less influential/respected. This is not a view universally held, as a historian of science his contributions are widely described as being outstanding, and he is said to have been very well respected in his own field of paleao biology. However I have tried to establish how influential his science was by establishing how often his scientific papers (not his popular works) have been cited in the scientific literature, through the ISI databases. For comparison, Richard Dawkins' most highly cited scientific paper has 100 citations, Ernst Mayr's has 173, CG Williams' has 253 and D Tutyama's has 394. Gould's most highly cited paper (in Proc R Soc 1979) has 1,613 citations, and the next eight have 863, 609, 291, 169, 138, 121, 121, and 109 citations - the last of these published in 1974 is on antler size.
I do not think that any claim that Gould was not highly influential as a scientist is objectively sustainable. His citation record is exceptional by any standards.Gleng 09:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The influence of Gould's scientific papers is definitely top tier. His most cited paper (1613) according to ISI is "Spandrels of San-Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm." Another issue that's been raised that this doesn't necessarily respond to, though, is the claims along the lines of Maynard Smith's that Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory." Anyway, it seems we're looking at somewhat different results at ISI, as I see more citations for, e.g., Gould's other papers (2nd most cited is 966 for "Allometry and Size in Ontogeny and Phylogeny"), and Dawkin's most cited paper has 413. WD Hamilton seems to set the record in the area with 3770, but the comparatively low citation rate for Mayr would seem to underscore that this is, in the end, a limited measurement.--Nectar 11:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; citation analysis is limited; my point was simply to provide verifiable evidence for the impact that Gould's scientific work has had. Obviously there are controversial elements in his views, and whether he has given biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory may or may not be the point; was he trying to give non-biologists a picture of the state of evolutionary theory or trying to explain his own views? In which case the criticism might be correct, but iss less than stinging. Gleng 12:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess it's a matter of interpretation. First, it appears that the criticism of Gould's scholarly works is mostly limited to his interactions with evolutionary genetics/biology. In paleo and anthro he appears to have been well received. So as a geneticst, my view of Gould is largely negative (in line with Maynard Smith's). A secondary point--the citation analysis would need to include books, where a lot of the action in this field has taken place. For example, Mayr's Animal Species and Evolution has 4000+ citations. --Rikurzhen 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Gould is clearly among the most cited names in evolutionary biology, and he is the third most cited biologist in his professions flagship journal Paleobiology, behind only to Charles Darwin and G. G. Simpson. However citation analysis alone can be very misleading, but I do think it is helpful in many ways. Despite these problems, his numbers are quite impressive. David B. Wake, who was a fellow NAS member and expert on speciation, wrote a very compelling paper on this subject, titled "On the scientific legacy of Stephen Jay Gould". It seems the more I investigate this issue, the more I worry that I have conceded far too much to Gould's very vocal critics. — Miguel Chavez 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation analysis 

message: SJG's article's introduction should include infomation about his controversies because the article has a section devoted to its subject's controversies. Thus it is relevent enough to be included in the article's introduction. The same cannot be said for Dawkins' article. If anyone feels that this is not fair and balanced enough then one should add controversial infomation into other articles instead of removing controversial infomation from this article.
Also, the citation for Gould acussing his critics of misrepresenting his work would do better if it is more specific. Maybe like the citation for "critics went further and accused Gould of misrepresenting their work". Oskart 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Oskart. The controversies surrounding Gould's work are simply not representative enough to be included in the general introduction. Contrary to the opinions of some wikipedians, Gould was well respected, and the controversies surrounding his work, when taken in totality, are too subtle and peripheral—mostly on issues related to one's preferred emphasis of adaptation—to be displayed so prominently (and worded so strongly). By making these disagreements into something more than they are, we risk suggesting that Gould was some sort of scientific pariah, which simply wasn't the case. (And I've heard numerous complaints on this issue.) No other scientist listed in wikipedia (and I have looked) is being subjected to the kind of negative treatment that is being displayed here. Richard Dawkins for example has a glowing introduction, even though he was not as respected as Gould, and is considerably more controversial. I think it's obvious that too much politics has crept in here and it's time we kept it in check. I would not even subject Richard to such polemical perversions. It is unfair to either gentleman. Best, Miguel Chavez 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholly with the above. Gould was influential across many areas of biological science for his academic work alone; influence includes provoking reactions, and in many ways the vocal reactions are a tribute to his influence and the wide respect he was accorded. Of his major disputes, the dispute over sociobiology is one where I think his was the majority scientific viewpoint; the controversy over IQ is an interesting case, and I suspect that among biologists generally the vote goes quite strongly with Gould; his case had flaws, but overall it was powerful, for all that it still has its proponents, IQ is now regarded as a deeply and fundamentally flawed concept by many. He wrote so well that many didn't credit the possibility that he could also be, in his own right, a major scientist and also a major historian of science.Gleng 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't follow your argument. Just because there is a section on "controversies" doesn't necessarily mean that it should be reflected in the introduction. There is also a section on Gould's personal life, as well as The Mismeasure of Man. Furthermore, no one is saying he wasn't controversial. Only that the paragraph on controversies should be placed (properly) in the controversies section. The introduction should be a concise snapshot of who the person was, and what he did. I was afraid that by focusing too much on the controversies we might give the impression that Gould was more radical than he truly was, and might possibly seed the impression that Gould's ideas were entirely unreasonable. It might surprise you to know that I actually wrote that paragraph you're so insistent on keeping up. I did so to reflect some of the strong sentiments shared by his very vocal critics, but written in a reasonable and tolerant way. However the more I scanned the articles on Wikipedia, the more I realized that Gould had really been singled out as a target, and that many more controversial scientists had much more respectful biographies (and like Dawkins, glowing introductions). The simple fact is this article focuses way too much on the politics of scientific debate, and not enough on the science. Gould touched on a lot of different topics in his scientific career—which, sadly, are not being discussed here. What about Gould's contributions to heterochrony, and evolutionary developmental biology, why is so little said about punctuated equilibrium and its development into elaborating macro level selection, as well as contributing to concepts like paleoecological stasis and species cohesion. What about his contributions to understanding phyletic diversity, adaptation, contingency, structuralism, allometry in growth, and deep homologies within genetic systems? If I had to take a guess, I would bet that the reason this article focuses so much on the controversies is that so much has been written about it in popular print, and that's all some people know. What is clear to me is that this article needs to be more nuanced, and reflect a more real picture of who Gould was, and what he meant to evolutionary theory. All this controversies stuff is bullshit (however entertaining it is to read about). Personally I don't care that much where that paragraph is. But I honestly think it goes better as an introduction to the controversies section, rather than as a closing for the general introduction. I'm up for letting it go for a vote, and to let it be decided by the strength of the arguments. Best, Miguel Chavez 02:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Oskart, I also agree that the subject of IQ is somewhat off topic, but I recommend that readers here take the time to read "Mainstream Science on Intelligence." Particularly how "intelligence" (whithout doubt an extremely complex concept) is defined (in conclusion 1), and how it is broken down into almost absurdly reductionist terms (see conclusion 2). But what I found particularly welcome was conclusion 9, which states: "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes" which Gould would surely be sympathetic to. I would also recommend that readers take the trouble to read Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, which is surprisingly a very reasonable thesis, given the extreme controversy surrounding it. Personally, I do think the IQ people are on to something, but I also believe they are less than willing to admit their methodological weaknesses, which run aplenty. Best, Miguel Chavez 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the subject of IQ is tangential;  The Mismeasure of Man takes a primarily historical perspective, exposing the pseudoscientific origins of the concept of IQ and its subsequent abuse, and there are plenty of biologists who regard this area of psychology as still deeply flawed. However the issue is not whether some of Gould's opinions were controversial, some clearly were, but about the context of the controversies and Gould's role in them. Gould was a major scientist of considerable impact for his scientific adademic contributions, who garnered an extraordinary collection of honours and accolades from academic institutions in recognition of those; he became the spokesman of a large body of scientific opinion on several controversial issues: creationism, IQ and sociobiology; on each of these issues Gould argued, inter alia, that science was being subverted to pseudoscience and abused for political ends. Because his was a voice of widely accepted authority within academic science, and because he also gained an unparalleled following through his popularisation of science, he became the frequent focus of personal attacks. I'm merely one of many who have cited Gould in the scientific literaure, and who feel that the nature of some of the personal attacks on Gould are shameful, yet their nature is itself a validation of one of Gould's recurrent themes, that scientific opinions always have to be assessed in the context of the times, including the social and political context, and that dispassionate and objective science requires acknowledgement and understanding of our present prejudices and preconceptions. Gould was first and foremost an outstanding scientist and thinker; this gave him the authority that made subsequent controversies so notable. In those controversies, his voice was representative of the views of many others, but in his own science he made  significant original contributions. Gleng 09:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Oskart. We sure wrote quite a bit of words for what ultimately came down to very little change. But before we finish, I wanted to address a point you made, which was very good. The reason why I consider Dawkins more controversial than Gould is that Dawkins advances a more unrealistic version of evolution. It is elegant, intuitive, beautiful, and taken seriously by few. His appreciation for speciation, morphological and genetic constraints, macroevolutionary tempos and trends, among a few other things, is very limited. And I hate to say this—since I greatly admire both Dawkins' writings and courage—but he tends to go off on tangents he knows very little about. For instance punctuated equilibrium and philosophy (although I completely agree with him on the last). His gene-centered view of selection has been attacked by philosophers and evolutionists alike. His greatest contribution has been his excellent popular works, as well as his metaphor of the extended phenotype. Gould however contributed much more to paleontology and evolutionary theory, and his ideas are more widely discussed and have spurred vast amounts of serious scientific research (especially with regards to paleontology). The reason Gould has a controversy section, I suppose, is that Gould was further entrenched in controversial subjects (punctuated equilibrium, sociobiology, adaptation, phyletic origin, rapid modes of speciation, etc.) and was quite aggressive about it. Gould also openly engaged his opponents and tried to instigate discussion (and to a large extent, some polarization). This obviously created some backlash, but it also benefited evolutionary theory by attracting attention to areas of theoretical debate, which were largely ignored. Best, Miguel Chavez 07:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Oskart; all the points you made were good points for consideration; I wasn't writing to deny that, only to contribute to the discussion so that all sides can see this article from various perspectives on Gould and his work - and especially from the often underappreciated impact that his purely scientific contributions have had. ;)Gleng 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced controversies stuff in the introduction 

message: One of the links is of a site that promoves strong forms of eugenics and etc. I do not think that it is much more adequate than a link to a nazi criticism on a article about judaism. --Extremophile 16:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to something does not mean Wikipedia is promoting it (Wikipedia does not promote anything). And explain how a link is inadequate without resorting to Reductio ad Hitlerum.--Oskart 01:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Substitute the Hitler analogy which was a bit closer to some article on evolution with a link to a creationist website with the usual BSism made up of tendentious exposition of facts. --Extremophile 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what does the link have to do with creationists and how does that make the link inadequate? (FYI: "adequate" and "inadequate" does not mean good or bad, it means enough or not enough.) --Oskart 03:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Oskart in this case. The link "Mismeasure of Gould" contains an almost complete survey of Gould's critics, which I have found very useful. It contains excerpts from Dawkins, Ruse, Pinker, Dennet, Alcock, Sterelny as well as Corroll and Rushton. It therefore allows readers to read the criticism directly, rather than second hand. Information is information, regardless of where it comes from. It goes with out saying that Mr. Matt Nuenke, the proprietor and editor of the website, has an agenda (and is a quack of sorts), but thankfully he didn't write anything here. Not really, anyway. It's the intellectual work of other individuals--who are not racist or advocates of eugenics. So although I share your sentiments, I have to vote against.  Mchavez 04:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it okay to wikipedia promote pro-eugenics sites? 

message: I've noticed over the last few days that one person removed the phrase "and other forms of pseudoscience" and then someone else reverted it saying that the deletion was POV.  Maybe there is a way we can come to some acceptable language here on the Talk page without going back and forth with reversions?  Although I agree that "creation science" and "intelligent design" actually are pseudoscience, it seems to me that saying so in so many words sounds more POV than not saying so.  After all, even without the phrase "and other forms of pseudoscience" it is clear from the passage that Gould considered them to be so.  Perhaps the best thing would be to find a quote from Gould himself referring to these branches of "study" and insert it place of the disputed phrase.  If he, in fact, called them "pseudoscience," use a quote from him and reference it.  Does this sound like a good solution?  Does anyone have a quote we can use?
:Given the consensus is that "creation science" and "intelligent design" are pseudosciences I read the wording "...and other forms of pseudoscience" not in relation to those but in relation to other subjects which are also addressed earlier (though it doesn't say so in our article I'm refering to the selection quotas of humans (what we now would call racism) with the US Immigration Restriction Act of 1924) which Gould addresses in "Mismeasure of Man". The obit in the Guardian says, "Gould's critique of the pseudoscience of claims concerning the inheritance of intelligence, developed in one of his best-known books, The Mismeasure Of Man (1981), became a major source for anti-racist campaigners." http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,719828,00.html I think it's safe to say that both fact that he "spent much of his time fighting" + "..." + "and other forms of pseudoscience" is not original research. That he has contributed to related books e.g.  the forward in "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Supersition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" by Michael Shermer means he was confortable with the word "pseudoscience". Ttiotsw 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pseudoscience?" 

message: I think the information in this article should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article: Gorbachev of Darwinism 136.183.146.158 11:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, have you ever read Gould? I have. And some of Dawkins' published comments on him. That articles' nonsense, mischaracterising the punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism debate. Dawkins, in the Blind Watchmaker, I believe, said Gould was probably right about the core of his punctuated equilibrium theory, but disagreed strongly to how Gould presented it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the following articles clarify matters further:  Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? by Dr Don Batten and Gould grumbles about creationist ‘hijacking’ by Don Batten 136.183.146.158 00:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the following is true and invalidates your complaint:  "Gould in particular made a number of strong statements in the 1970s about the lack of evidence in the fossils for the gradual transformation of one species into another. For example, in 1977 Gould wrote:  ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology… . to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’13  (emphasis added) 136.183.146.158 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gould - Gorbachev of Darwinism 

message: I believe the Wikipedia article misses the mark regarding Gould's political beliefs.  I cite the following article: What is the evidence that Gould was a Marxist? 136.183.146.158 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a read of Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons, which partially applies as he died only a couple years ago. That is what is commonly known as a "defamatory article". Adam Cuerden talk 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam Cuerden, look at the article more closely.  It cites its claims as can be seen by the footnotes.  Also, the article cites some socialist online publications for further reading.  I also cite this from the article: "The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.1 The Encyclopedia of the American Left singled Gould out as one of the ‘few scientists [who] have emerged as major public allies of the Left’ and as ‘perhaps the most formidable example of a supportive presence at Left events and for Left causes.’2   136.183.146.158 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ken, please stop. *Spark* 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the evidence that Gould was a Marxist? 

message: While I don't agree with NOMA I think that whoever included Dawkin's criticism in the same paragraph as Non-Overlapping magisteria was biased. I have separated the two by simply adding criticism above the quotations from Dawkins' Book and I am inclined to transfer them to the controversies section.
Mr.georgemark 1st Dec 2006 12:56 GMT
:When I added the Dawkins stuff I thought that as the Gould article had a specific section on NOMA (a concept which Gould specifically termed and promoted) I felt the Dawkins criticism WRT NOMA would be lost in the controversies section. Someone hunting for NOMA and criticsm should find the data faster as you have done it so wouldn't recommend hiding it in "Controversies". It is unclear what your allegation of bias on my part is based on. Ttiotsw 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOMA and Dawkin's criticism 

message: Watch the links! A holocaust-denier link has been added. (And removed by an anon, thankfully.) We do not want that garbage floating around. Adam Cuerden talk 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy! 

message: Is Stephen Jay Gould related to the infamous 19th century financier with the similar name? If so, what is the relation? It is unmentioned in either article. --Christofurio 19:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jay Gould]] 

message: The article, Darwinian Fundamentalism, discusses an article by Gould, but appears less than faithfully explain Gould's opinions on his fellow scientisits. It should be merge, unless expanded, and cleaned up. FGT2 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwinian Fundamentalism merge 

message: The more I read this, the less it makes sense. Adam Cuerden talk 10:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut section 

message: It has always troubled me that in the Simpsons episode Lisa the Skeptic, Gould appears to do himself a disservice. He initially asserts that scientific testing on a supposed angel skeleton was "inconclusive". Yet at the end of the episode Gould admits to never testing the sample. It always seemed incredibly inexplicable to me, as if there was more going on offscreen than was shown. Did Gould or any associated parties ever explain why this was so? Even if it was nothing more than bad writing on the part of the makers, it's not a great advert for Gould's adherence to scientific method. 
ClarenceAtomkraft 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think anyone liked the ending. But it was nice to see Gould on one of my all time favorite shows. According to Shalini Bhargava, of The Stanford Daily, "Gould agreed to work on the episode because the script was 'interesting,' and it only took 10 minutes, he said. 'I didn't see it initially until the day it was shown,' he said." Best, Mchavez 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the episode itself was from Season 9 of the series, one of the weakest seasons in the show's history. Shrumster 10:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpsons Appearance 

message: It is a pleasure to pass such a good article. It clearly meets all the GA criteria. It does a particularly good job of maintaining NPOV in discussing the numerous controversies in which Gould was involved, and I can tell from reading some of the comments on this page that it was not easy getting there :) I do have a couple of suggestions for the Controversies section. It should say something about what his objections to Sociobiology were. In particular it should have a couple of sentences linking his opposition to sociobiology to the opposition to biological determinism and the concern over the historical misuse of science (or psuedoscience) in support of racism and sexism that are mentioned elswhere in the article. The connections may not be obvious to people not already very familiar with these topics. The discussion of his opposition to gene selectionism is better, but it seems to me that he emphasized selection at the organism/phenotype level more than the species level. In fact I seem to recall that at times he was quite critical of group selection. Despite these minor concerns, I want to say again that this is a wonderful article.Rusty Cashman 08:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. And your suggestion's are right on the mark. I've briefly taken care to eliminate the confusion over Gould's views on selection. When time permits, I, or one of the regular contributors here, will clarify the areas you mentioned. Thanks! Mchavez 09:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Passed 

message: [This is in response to someone who deleted Maynard Smith because they believed he was not critical of Human Sociobiology]
Let me say first that the dichotomy between Gould, Lewontin, and Maynard Smith compared to Pinker, Dawkins and Dennett is misleading. Between them all exist a wide range of opinion—and even some surprising overlap on important points, along with  nontrivial disagreements among supporters. However the division, as expressed in the article, is not totally unfair. John Maynard Smith has frequently made his objections to human sociobiology (or evolutionary psychology, if you prefer) known. In a revealing interview, he states:
In Maynard Smith's moderately critical review of E. O. Wilson's On Human Nature, he expresses his general skepticism, while displaying some openness to certain cases:
In 1985 Philip Kitcher wrote—according to Maynard Smith—an "admirable book," called Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, which was a technical critique of current sociobiological arguments for human behavior. Part of Kitcher's critique was to divide the field into two styles or spheres; first, those who argue as E.O. Wilson do (which is to say, naively), and second, those who argue with more rigor, as Richard Alexander, relying on testable relationships of human behavior and inclusive fitness. Referring to the latter form, Maynard Smith writes: "Unlike Wilson's arguments, which seem to me generally ill-formulated and empty of content, this claim is worth taking seriously, even though it is probably false." And to reiterate the point again: "This school of sociobiologists do say things about real societies that are testable; I find it hard to believe that they are right, but at least they are not vacuous." ("Biology and the Behavior of Man" ibid. p. 92). And finally this video clip from the Peoples Archive is rather interesting.
Even Dennett has expressed criticism of human sociobiology, calling it a form of "greedy reductionism," but has also expressed sympathy towards the explanations proposed by evolutionary psychology. Intern, Gould himself has expressed strong support for the sociobiological explanations of altruism proposed by Robert Trivers. Clearly the issue is more complicated than the article implies, but when introducing difficult subjects it is convenient sometimes to set up a controversy in a dialectical way.
Miguel Chavez 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Maynard Smith and Human Sociobiology 

message: The paragraph about the reception of this book doesn't explain why there were different viewpoints, and the only reference for the comments is a link that doesn't work. --Parkwells (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mismeasure of Man 

message: I removed this paragraph: But Gould also writes: "Sociobiologists have broadened their range of selective stories by invoking concepts of inclusive fitness and kin selection to solve (successfully I think) the vexatious problem of altruism—previously the greatest stumbling block to a Darwinian theory of social behavior. . . . Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well. For it represents an extension of basic Darwinism to a realm where it should apply." Gould, 1980. "Sociobiology and the Theory of Natural Selection" In G. W. Barlow and J. Silverberg, eds., Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture? Boulder CO: Westview Press, pp. 257-269. ... as I beleive it was incorrectly interpreted by the previous editor. Gould is not talking about sociobiology as applied to humans - the word was originally used to mean all studies of animal social behaviour, and this is the definition that had currency in 1980. Also, he doesn't mean "altruism" the way a Wikipedia reader would understand it. He means "altruism" in the context of eusocial animals like bees and ants - it has a very different definition and meaning.
Dissembly (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed quotation re: sociobiology 

message: Shouldn't Project Steve get some tiny mention in this article?  (If it is there, I couldn't find it while looking for information on the project) Huw Powell (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I'll try to integrate.  WLU (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Steve 

message: Is it not blindingly obvious to all that the lead section of this article is too short by a country mile? And yes, that is part of the GA criteria. Please, somebody expand it to meet the requirements of WP:LS so as to avoid having it delisted.
I also note that a familiar someone has noted this in the to-do list already, yet it still seems to have escaped everyones' notice. It seems no amount of effort I make is making people more aware of the requirements of lead sections (or the GA requirements). Richard001 (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What a coincidence. I added a paragraph to the lead before I even read this comment. I've got a lot of experience working with leads, and this one could be better still. Leads should be able to stand alone as concise summaries of their topics. Leadwind (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could still be slightly longer perhaps, but that's more than enough to avoid delisting. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still working on the lead, plus reorging the body. Interesting topic. Leadwind (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: What does this even mean?
:"Gould championed biological constraints as well as other non-selectionist forces in evolution. In particular, he considered higher functions of the human brain to be the byproduct of natural selection and not its selected result. This understanding undermines an essential premise of human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology."
I see how the first sentence downplays sociobiology's importance by saying "No, sorry, some biological components of our psychology are strongly influenced by constraints, so you're theory can't fully handle such components".  Yes, that makes sense but it doesn't "undermine an essential premise" does it?  Do relativity & quantum mechanics "undermine" one another?
I'm afraid the second sentence doesn't make much sense period.  Gould certainly knew that some aspects of cognition were "selected for."
Well, I'm afraid the whole section sounds like OR currently.  Can we just quote his own words?  I mean, he's got plenty of word on the subject!  67.85.188.249 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: "...all biological traits as things that had been naturally selected for specifically." Specifically what? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  text seems to be missing 

message: He is listed under both Jewish Atheists and Jewish Agnostics. Someone have the RS? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One can be both, as they address different questions. Atheism addresses your belief or nonbelief in God's existance. Agnosticism addresses your belief that the question is even knowable. Gould adopted both labels, and did so sincerely. Although in public he usually preferred the title agnostic, whereas atheist seemed to be the preferred adjective when in the company of his closest friends and family (e.g. his wife Rhonda and his friend Oliver Sacks). Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I see, I guess like agnostic theism (though that is defined in a different way; the proposition of God may be true, but the existance is unknown). Still, isn't it still considered simply agnosticism? Anyways, thanks for the speedy reply. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reminded of Dawkins' response to a similar question. Technically, we are all agnostics, since we do not know the answer with 100% certainty. However, we use the term "atheist" - or those of use who do not believe, anyway - since we view it as exceedingly unlikely. He goes on to quote someone else - was it Douglas Adams? I can't remember - saying, "we can't prove that fairies or a teapot in orbit around Mars don't exist. But we don't believe them. While we are technically agnostic, we would say we are ateapotists and afairyists. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

text: As I said above, noone knows with complete certainty, and is thus technically agnostic, but one who identifies as an atheist sees it as exceedingly unlikely and therefore effectually impossible for all intents and purposes. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What now? 

message: Please note discussion to move nonoverlapping magesteria at Talk:Non-overlapping magisteria#Move?.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move of NOMA 

message: The tone of this article is generally defensive.  It cites critics, but tries then to defend Gould in a partisan fashion.  For example, it cites Maynard Smith's critical remarks, and then mentions earlier occasions when Maynard Smith was laudatory (which to my mind is irrelevant to the criticisms made in the article in MS's review of Dennett).  It would be a lot better to take a more distanced approach.  It should be acknowledged that Gould did raise the ire of many evolutionary biologists for the good reason that his presentation of their views was often quite polemical and scientifically biased.  Of course, this doesn't mean that Gould was not an eminent scientist who made real contributions.  What it means is that he wasn't a cool-headed and fair critic of positions opposed to his own.    Philonous2 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article evolved that way years ago when it was heavily biased against Gould. A number of editors, both  critical and supportive of Gould, tried to balance the article with evenhanded commentary. Maynard Smith's positive comments were considered relevant due to the fact that they contradicted his more recent remarks that Gould was "confused" and not worth bothering with. You're right when you say Gould was polemical and scientifically biased. But those are hardly adjectives which Gould should be singled out for. Every prominent evolutionary biologist that I'm aware of can be accused of the same thing. It seems to go with the territory of being at the top of what you do. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gould was a massively overrated self-pusher 81.178.153.156 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is your evidence for this claim? Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Tone 

message: The sub-section Evolutionary Developmental Biology describes the process of heterochrony encompassing "two distinct processes" of pedomorphosis and terminal additions.  This is a bit misleading.  From what I've read in Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Gould builds upon Gavin de Beer's work with embryos which states that there are eight "morphological modes" of heterochrony: caenogenesis, adult variation, neoteny, hypermorphosis, deviation, retardation, reduction, and acceleration.  Gould states that these can be reduced to only two processes: acceleration and retardation (Gould, 1977, pp. 222-223).
Gould defines pedomorphosis as a consequence of progenesis or neoteny, but terminal addition is defined as a mechanism of Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law, which is mostly considered today to be an obsolete theory.  I think the article is confusing "terminal additions" with acceleration and retardation, but I may be misunderstanding a broader definition of the term if there is one.  Consider revising. -Ano-User (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminal additions? 

message: In the section on nonoverlapping magisteria, a controversy is introduced from the perspective of Richard Dawkins: that religion does not even merit a magisterium of its own. The other side of the controversy is not addressed: that the magisteria ought very much to overlap. Of course, I'm not talking about the magisterium of "religion," per se, but a movement toward the inclusion of "spirituality" in higher education is being led by Sherry Hoppe, Bruce Speck, Parker Palmer and the like. This philosophy suggests that science is more meaningful when couched in terms of its ethical and moral implications and these questions should be openly considered in classroom discussions where the empirical research is being presented. As long as the controversy was introduced in this article, perhaps we should include this perspective from the other end of the controversy's spectrum. Jesserjames (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonoverlapping Magisteria 

message: Under nationality it says "American". America is a very big continent. Therefore I wonder where in the American Continent was this connotation refering to? Or to say it better in which of all American countries was he born? Was he born in Cuba or in Argentina? Or perhaps he was born in the United States?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enciclopedikt (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He was born in the country which is known by that name in the English language.  Only one of the countries you mention has that name.  121a0012 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: In reviewing the archives, I was surprised to discover that the SPLC was qualified to evaluate the opinions of scientists and that their opinion could be used to exclude scientific commentary from this article. Now I am not qualified to evaluate the material that was under discussion, but I strongly doubt the qualifications of the SPLC on scientific material also.  I enjoyed Gould as a popular writer of science, but I always felt that there was a certain "smarminess" and "contempt" under the surface. Shazaam! The "science" always supported his "politics" which he carefully never directly stated but you could always “feel” under the surface. Seki1949 (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Poverty Law Center 

message: I wonder why there is no section about Gould's leftist politics? He was a member of the radical People's Scientists group, and had acknowledged the influence of his Marxist/communist parents, being a "red diaper baby," many times, including in particular that his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was in part due to the fact that he paid attention to his Marxism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.87.70 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: I don't agree that the "Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject", and I frankly don't understand the rationale... Could someone shed some light on this? Otherwise I'd delete the tag. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section tagged 

message: Although they are clearly not related, is it possible that he was named for Jay Gould?  If anyone knows anything about this, it should be included in the article (not that SJG would have been thrilled with the connection). 76.106.149.108 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually addresses this in Punctuated Equilibrium; some publication ran a picture of Jay Gould instead and he did not know who it was. From this I gather he was not named for him. --Dagko (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name connection 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]]

message: I find it very difficult to justify the inclusion of Friedrich Wilhelm Graf in this article. Graf is a fairly obscure German theologian, and his work does not intersect with the work of Gould, or the main body of literature apropos of Gould. Virtually all is work is published in German, and is inaccessible to most English speakers. Any reader familiar with Gould would also be quite puzzled why this obscure author is included (twice) in the main body of this article.
The editor who included Graf takes his claims at face value, at writes them up as if they were simply fact. These are Graf's opinions (and most of us will have to take this on faith, since they are published in German). Several times in Gould's career he did claim that creationism is a "uniquely American phenomenon." But is this editor justified in saying Gould's claim was "a significant error"? Do secondary sources agree that this is an "error"? Was it an error or accurate when the claim was made?Blancke, Stefaan and Peter Kjærgaard (2016). "Creationism Invades Europe: An antiscience movement once limited mostly to the U.S. is gaining ground on the eastern side of the Atlantic." Scientific AmericanKatz, Gregory (2008). "Creationism vs. evolution battle flares in Europe." USA Today. And why is this error deemed "significant"? Other sources certainly echo Gould's thesis.Frank, Adam (2010). "Creationism Vs. Evolution: An American Problem, An American Opportunity." NPR.Acker, Joan (2000). "Creationism and the Catechism." America Magazine (Dec. 16.)
According to Graf, "In Germany, one in five considers the biblical myth to be true." This agrees with 2006 Michigan State University study, and a 2011 Ipsos poll. This is a sizable minority position, no doubt, but it remains a minority nonetheless. (See graph for details.) I don't think the editor is therefore justified in claiming that Gould made a "a significant error." Gould did not claim that creationism did not exist among other Western nations. He did not claim it was not growing at some rate. Only that it was not a "phenomenon." He did not define what this meant, or suggest limits or ratios. Although contemporary polling suggest Gould was probably right.
Furthermore, I think the editor subtlety misrepresents Graf's claim. In the one English source we are provided, Graf argues that the "religio-cultural movement" is growing—creationism being only a single facet of this movement. And even if this is true, it does not imply that creationism itself has grown to become a "phenomenon" among Western nations outside the US. If Graf's opinions about creationism are to be included in an article about Gould, the editor should try to keep the language more neutral and stick to what the original sources say. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. The same user tried to include this stuff in the Creationism artcle, and everybody except him saw it was inapprioprate. As a consequence, it was removed. I just deleted it here too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule I hate to remove a contribution that was made in good faith. If there is an issue, surely there are several pathways to compromise and fix any problems or disputes. In this case I was stuck. The contribution was a non sequitur (literally random, and not following what came before). It is included in a section about Gould's influence as a public intellectual. In this sphere, the NCSE started a project in Gould's honor. Then an editor takes issue with an unrelated (and rather trivial) comment: "Gould's 1986 claim of creationism as a 'local, indigenous, American bizarrity' has been deemed a significant error - as creationist ideas had already then been spreading quicker and more globally ever since, especially in the 1990s." I thought, even if this is true (see sources above), what does this have to do with Gould as a public intellectual? Why is the article going off in a tangent about the growth of Creationism in the West? Is this the best place to litigate this topic? Read in context the sentence is painfully awkward, probably false, too trivial to be included in an encyclopedia, and seems to serve no larger purpose. Thank you for the help. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess one could add the text to an article about Graf, if we had one. But even that would be a stretch. I don't see any other good place for it within WP. After all, it is essentially "some obscure theologian disagreed with a famous paleontologist about sociological stuff". Neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree with the removal; this elaborate focus on a random theologian is WP:UNDUE in this article. He does not seem to be perceived as having played a marked role in the evaluation of SJG's work.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Friedrich Wilhelm Graf

message: :You are absolutely right. The same user tried to include this stuff in the Creationism artcle, and everybody except him saw it was inapprioprate. As a consequence, it was removed. I just deleted it here too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule I hate to remove a contribution that was made in good faith. If there is an issue, surely there are several pathways to compromise and fix any problems or disputes. In this case I was stuck. The contribution was a non sequitur (literally random, and not following what came before). It is included in a section about Gould's influence as a public intellectual. In this sphere, the NCSE started a project in Gould's honor. Then an editor takes issue with an unrelated (and rather trivial) comment: "Gould's 1986 claim of creationism as a 'local, indigenous, American bizarrity' has been deemed a significant error - as creationist ideas had already then been spreading quicker and more globally ever since, especially in the 1990s." I thought, even if this is true (see sources above), what does this have to do with Gould as a public intellectual? Why is the article going off in a tangent about the growth of Creationism in the West? Is this the best place to litigate this topic? Read in context the sentence is painfully awkward, probably false, too trivial to be included in an encyclopedia, and seems to serve no larger purpose. Thank you for the help. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess one could add the text to an article about Graf, if we had one. But even that would be a stretch. I don't see any other good place for it within WP. After all, it is essentially "some obscure theologian disagreed with a famous paleontologist about sociological stuff". Neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree with the removal; this elaborate focus on a random theologian is WP:UNDUE in this article. He does not seem to be perceived as having played a marked role in the evaluation of SJG's work.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I often see Gould described, without qualification, as "a Marxist". I think we need to state in the article exactly what type of supposed Marxist he was since this term has been used an abused by a wide array of people (particularly in Western Europe and North America). At the moment the article states that he was inspired by C. Wright Mills, which suggests a 1960s, "right on, man", New Left, revisionist American-campus Marijuanese-Marxism, rather than some sort of serious Marxist-Leninism (ie - anything going on in the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, China, etc). Do we have any decent reference material which lays out specifically what his point of view was? Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's pretty light stuff. Scientific American mentioned his being called a "crypto-Marxist. But Marx’s highly deterministic, progressive view of history seemed antithetical to Gould's." Definitely not Marxist-Leninist there. Socialism Today said "Gould appears to have consciously attempted to apply a broadly-Marxist method of analysis to evolution", and mentioned that Gould ended an essay with Marx's "Philosophers thus far have only interpreted the world in various ways: the point, however, is to change it." In the same essay he stated ""Hegelians and Marxists have long advocated the ‘transformation of quantity into quality’ as a basic statement about the nature of change." This also indicates he may have admired them but didn't consider himself to be one of them. So we have crypto-, broadly-, and general interest. Perhaps we could use the word "soft". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Gould was not a Marxist. His father was, however. Gould always eschewed labels, particularly when it came to politics or religion. I remember reading that Gould's father was always disappointed by his rejection of Marxism. As a result, Gould agreed to chair an advisory board for the journal Rethinking Marxism in an effort to please him. People close to Gould generally report he was not a Marxist. And this seems to be the consensus view among family, friends, colleagues, and biographers. The only people who claim he was a Marxist are a few Marxist admirers, but more often critics of Gould looking for a cheap rhetorical shot. David Prindle wrote in his book Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution "Nevertheless, as a first characterization, it is most accurate to speak of Gould as a non-Marxist leftist." (p. 24) Anthropologist Brian Morris stated, "He was essentially a radical liberal, or a non-Marxist 'leftist'." (Anthropology and the Human Subject, p. 114.) Michael Shermer, Gould's friend, and fellow historian of science, put it plainly: "Gould was not a Marxist." (Rethinking Marxism. London: Routledge Press, p. 507.) Gould's widow Rhonda Roland Shearer wrote, "Steve was not a communist. [sic] He carefully said he learned communism 'on his father's knee' — not that he was a communist. Steve always felt badly that he disappointed his father by not becoming a Marxist. He, therefore, in honor of his father, gave the occasional lecture at communist locales, pro bono. He mentioned how his critical independence from his father was struck on the day he realized that communism was 'misguided' and he dared to argue the points with his father. After the fall of communism, Steve reflected that he was happy his father was 'not alive to see it.' Steve did not like pigeon holes. Critics attacked him with statements 'he is an atheist' or 'he is a red' or 'he is a communist.' Steve would never retort 'I am not a communist' or 'I am not an atheist.' Too evocative of the McCarthy era for his taste." (Dated March 21, 2007) Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would explain the "crypto-Marxist" accusation, then. Maybe that's all that needs to be said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which type of "Marxism"? 

message: As discussed at Talk:Scientific racism#New study noticed in Ars " – so that's a potential secondary source . . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally the section on Morton's skulls was longer and over time it has subsequently been truncated, I think correctly so, on the basis that the topic has been given undo weight. The Mitchell PLOS paper is an interesting addition to the story, but it doesn't add much to what has already been said by Lewis, Weisberg, Kaplan, et. al. Cesaravi (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Wolff Mitchell and Morton's skulls

message: User  User:2601:43:101:75a0:94ee:e0c2:f9f3:ac9afo has included the following edit to the The Mismeasure of Man section:
"Anthropologist Paul Wolff Mitchell published an analysis of Morton's original, unpublished data, which neither Gould nor subsequent commentators had directly addressed, and concluded that while Gould's specific argument about Morton's unconscious bias in measurement is not supported upon closer examination, it was true, as Gould had claimed, that Morton's racial biases influenced how he reported and interpreted his measurements."Mitchell, P.W. (2018). "The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science." Public Library of Science Biology 16 (10): e2007008.
Previously this was perceived as extraneous material which lends undue weight to subject that is already covered disproportionately in comparison to other aspects of Gould's professional work. The article is also written by an anthropology PhD candidate. Discussion on whether this should remain, be removed, or be limited to a citation would be welcome. Cesaravi (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Doesn't strike me as egregious or undue, actually (particularly as it's just one sentence). It's not exactly a heavily cited study , but neither have people descended on it and called it out as faulty. Mismeasure is one of the Gould friction points, and should get a fair amount of ancillary material; as it does in our current article. I'd retain this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I was leaning that way myself. Cesaravi (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Wolff Mitchell

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This page may need a little more research. Footnote 11 does not support "Bayside," and PS 26 is in Fresh Meadows (supported by fn 12). I was told by a neighbor of his that he did live in Fresh Meadows, but that's worthless information here. Danchall (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Bayside and footnote