RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3630Goal: $5000

Talk:Stephen Jay Gould

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I have removed the following rather bizaire comment about Dawkins: After Gould died, Richard Dawkins began claiming Gould did not believe this, even though Gould came up with the it. Appearently Dawkins knows what other people believe better than the other people themselves. Dawkins is satisfied that his claim is correct, because Gould is yet to deny it. Dawkins evidently has no idea that Gould is long dead, and therefore is in no position to deny anything.

Maybe that was a joke at the expense of religions, which also make a lot of claims about the beliefs and preferences of an entity that seems disinclined to speak plainly on its own behalf? --Gulik 11:26, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
That is possible I suppose. But I'm not convinced that Bohdan is in the habit of making jokes about religions. Still, I suppose it's possible.  :-.) --Bob_M (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

However, in the God Delusion Dawkins states, for example: ...Gould carried the art of bending over backwards to positively supine lengths in one of his less admired books, Rocks of Ages. There he coined the acronym NOMA for the phrase 'nonoverlapping magisterial. .... and later ...... I am not suggesting that my colleagues of the appeasement lobby are necessarily dishonest. They may sincerely believe in NOMA, although I can't help wondering how thoroughly they've thought it through and how they reconcile the internal conflicts in their minds.

All of which suggests Dawkins both knew Gould was dead and that he had believed in NOMA.--Bob_M (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Fossil record?[edit]

The hypothesis has perhaps become less compelling as more and more of the fossil record has been revealed.

Is there a source for this unsupported opinion? It seems that whoever wrote this does not understand what Punctuated Equilibrium is and its history. Gould & co. do not claim that there isn't enough fossils and therefore it seems that there are "jumps" in the fossil record. Rather, as Gould notes, the fossil record is an "embarrassment of riches" in that while there are more than enough fossils, the record does not support the implicit view that species evolve in a gradual manner (despite Dawkins caricature of Gould's views in TBW). Punctuated Equilibrium is not a phenomena of an incomplete fossil record. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial edit[edit]

The writing's OK but it needs a citation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a bunch of loose sentences, one of which is not even finished. And a citation is indeed needed.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It is very poorly done, I admit that. But the reputation of this man has been questioned by enough people for a controversy read http://infoproc.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/high-v-low-m.html
Not saying he was selling snake oil, but apart from working on snails his output seems to have been mostly popular science (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)