General Discussions > Skepticism / Science Talk

Was Stephen J. Gould fraudulent?

(1/3) > >>

ST:
At least it is claimed so here: Beware of Stephen J. Gould

Some snippets:


--- Quote ---I am not calling Gould a scoundrel because he was wrong; honest scientists can make honest mistakes.  But Gould systematically misrepresented what other scientists thought; he deluded the public as to what evolutionary biologists were thinking.

...

Did Gould deliberately lie?  If not, he executed one of the most epic feats of self-deception in the history of marketing.

...

And after all this, Gould is widely believed, by the general public and even by many scientists outside evolutionary biology, to be an evolutionary theorist of honorable reputation!  It is as if Immanuel Velikovsky had managed to make himself into the public face of astronomy.

If you have read one of Gould's books, you are not to blame; but you must now do your best to un-believe it all - especially all the implied beliefs in evolutionary biology that Gould seemed to be attacking.

...

Many academic writers on Gould could not speak as sharply as Gould deserved.  As I have no fear for my own reputation, I will say it plainly: One way or another, knowingly or unknowingly, Gould deceived the trusting public and committed the moral equivalent of deliberate scientific fraud.
--- End quote ---


I'd like to know if there is some truth to this, or if it is just the usual sort of bollocks one can find in the verbal cesspit called the Internet.

Lukas:
There is some truth to it, Gould was controversial, and some people like Dawkins didn't like him, but the author blows it way out of proportion. Read the comments of Barkley Rosser under the article to get some perspective, e.g.:

--- Quote ---Eliezer,

Well, the statement from Tooby that you quote says exactly nothing precise. He refers to a "tangle," but nothing specific. Then he gives his shopping list of evolutionary biologists whom he considers more important/worthy than Gould. Fine, some of those certainly are and some others may be. This is hardly some slam dunk comment, but reeks all too much of the jealousy of the less popular for the more popular. I might as well get all bent out because Tyler Cowen and Bryan Caplan have written bigger selling books than I have.

Regarding Williams' argument, the issue is indeed the locus of evolution. Saying that it is the gene that gets passed on does not cut it. The question is the locus of activity that determines which genes get passed on. In the case of Dawkins and Williams this locus was generally (pretty much always in the case of Dawkins) the individual. Williams actually allowed for higher level selection as an occasional possibility. However, he ruled it out in general, and did so on essentially prisoner's dilemma, game theoretic grounds, the basis of Maynard Smith's position as well, the developer of the concept of the evolutionarily stable strategy. Maynard Smith was also very impressed with how easy it is for individuals to undermine cooperative strategies.

So, now we know better. Groups that cooperate can outcompete and replace groups that degenerate into internal back-stabbing and cheating. The evolution of such cooperation remains one of the really big questions out there. It turns out that the Crow-Hamilton-Price equations in fact give conditions for when such higher level evolutionary processes can become the dominating factor in determining which genes get passed on.

Regarding Gould, again, I am not going to defend him against all criticisms. I am not surprised that he has not always properly cited others. Certainly he had a large ego and did a lot of self-advertising. And I am perfectly willing to accept that he may have engaged in some oversimplifications or even obfuscations and confusions regarding evolution in terms of public knowledge. This is unfortunate to the extent it is true. But his debates with Dawkins and Williams and Maynard Smith were serious debates, regarding which on at least some issues the consensus is moving more in his direction now.

As for people dumping on his politicis, fine. But please do not pretend that you are making scientific arguments. These are essentially ad hominem arguments of the worst sort.

--- End quote ---

ST:

--- Quote from: Lukas on Jun 30, 2012, 10:42:20 AM ---There is some truth to it, Gould was controversial, and some people like Dawkins didn't like him, but the author blows it way out of proportion.
--- End quote ---

Being controversial and committing fraud is not the same thing. If I'm not mistaken the selfish gene view was (and perhaps still is) controversial, but I don't think anyone is claiming that Dawkins is committing fraud by advocating it.

And Dawkins did like Gould as a scientist despite their disagreements.

Lukas:

--- Quote from: ST on Jul 04, 2012, 12:47:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lukas on Jun 30, 2012, 10:42:20 AM ---There is some truth to it, Gould was controversial, and some people like Dawkins didn't like him, but the author blows it way out of proportion.
--- End quote ---

Being controversial and committing fraud is not the same thing. If I'm not mistaken the selfish gene view was (and perhaps still is) controversial, but I don't think anyone is claiming that Dawkins is committing fraud by advocating it.

And Dawkins did like Gould as a scientist despite their disagreements.

--- End quote ---
Yeah, I don't think anyone seriously claims Gould was "committing fraud", I don't even see the author of the original blog post bringing any serious evidence of fraud.

ST:

--- Quote from: Lukas on Jul 04, 2012, 03:15:06 PM ---
--- Quote from: ST on Jul 04, 2012, 12:47:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lukas on Jun 30, 2012, 10:42:20 AM ---There is some truth to it, Gould was controversial, and some people like Dawkins didn't like him, but the author blows it way out of proportion.
--- End quote ---

Being controversial and committing fraud is not the same thing. If I'm not mistaken the selfish gene view was (and perhaps still is) controversial, but I don't think anyone is claiming that Dawkins is committing fraud by advocating it.

And Dawkins did like Gould as a scientist despite their disagreements.

--- End quote ---
Yeah, I don't think anyone seriously claims Gould was "committing fraud", I don't even see the author of the original blog post bringing any serious evidence of fraud.
--- End quote ---

He may not bring serious evidence, but he does seriously assert it. But it is nothing but assertion then?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page