Should You Read Stephen Jay Gould?

In this video I discuss Stephen Jay Gould's gigantic book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" and why you might want to read it. I've always found Gould's writing difficult to understand, but also had an appreciation of his paleontological and evolutionary ideas and theories.
Here are some of Gould's other classic papers and books that might be worth checking out:
"The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme" available here: royalsocietypu...
Here is a critic of Gould's, the paleontologist Phil Gingerich who takes on Gould's ideas presented in the book:
"palaeo-electro..."

[@myrmepropagandist]

I met Stephen Jay Gould when I was 8 years old. He gave a talk on a lecture circuit in Cleveland at our school (it was a big event) He was very patient and took the time to talk to an 8 year old about why we don't have giant insects anymore. (My greatest concern at the time.)

[@michaelricketson1365]

I’ve always thought that ladybugs should be bigger.

[@pyb.5672]

The answer to this is actually fascinating, in how insects absorb oxygen and how it relates to the decrease of oxygen concentration in the atmosphere across time.

[@comment_section4766]

Gould is easily one of the most lucid and coherent writers I've ever encountered. So your criticisms just come off as bizarre, truly out of left field. I noticed a few years ago that attacks on Gould's legacy coincided with a renewed interest in 'scientific' racism -- which Gould famously debunked decades ago. There's also an increasing prevalence of "just so" evolutionary narratives, too often from academia as well -- where every trait is explained as an adaptation. It's a shame Gould isn't still alive. He was perhaps the best advocate for rational humanism we've ever had. Generous, humorous, and profoundly intelligent in an age of increasing mediocrity, hate, and irrationality.

[@peaceseeker9927]

Good point at the conclusion about the formidable depth of Gould's writings, but this video is mostly about your preferred scope of thinking, as it compares to Gould's work. Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man had substantial impact outside of the field of paleontology, and I would consider it mandatory reading because it skillfully addresses the fatal flaws in popular ideas about intelligence tests.

[@catrosenberg2856]

I've been researching stuff about Stephen Jay Gould after learning that he's my relative--(my grandpa's cousin to be specific) and came across this, nice video!

[@zhubajie6940]

Personally, I loved Gould's style as I learned a lot of new vocabulary and concepts along the way. Why read when you learn little and why not read when you learn a lot. One thing you also didn't mention is the preservation record of fossils through time. Geological processes that fossilize or erode away the evidence into dust occur continuously and at varying speeds also. Huge populations can be erased by these forces and small populations by quirks of geology preserved such as the Lagerstätte of Messel, Solnhofen, or as Gould wrote about the Burgess Shales. And we'll never know what vast populations of life were erased from ever being known.

[@HalifaxViewers]

An author cannot be blamed because someone else misinterpreted their writing. I have never seen a creationist misinterpret Gould as he has always spoken out against creationism as being manifestly false.

[@bjnslc]

One of the best popular science writers ever. I've not read his papers.

[@mikesnyder1788]

Excellent video and, yes, Gould was not perfect in his analysis of the history of life. However, back in the day, this exceptionally non-STEM student found his scientific journey beginning by reading the essays of Stephen Jay Gould! I confess that he lost me on more than one occasion but overall he is the one most responsible for my considerable interest in science today. His "Wonderful Life" has stuck with me over the years and so I say "Yes," read Stephen Jay Gould!

[@Kitsaplorax]

Catastrophism was the ideology that dominated the time before Uniformitarianism. Gould was harping on what was a very common feature in the 1960's. As s high school student in the early 1970's in Houston, I was told repeatedly by lecturers from NASA et al that it was theoretically impossible for planets to ever, ever change their orbital paths once initially established at solar system formation. It wasn't just in biology that catastrophe was ignored as s driving force. I read a lot of Gould decades ago, and got so puzzled by his baseball analogies that I was lost, and went back to reading Mayr et al.

[@HalifaxViewers]

If you didn’t understand Gould’s writing, how can you suggest he is incorrect in his theories?

[@unbreakable7633]

Books are almost always worth reading. I saw a debate between Gould and a creationist in the '90's. Enjoyed it very much and won't ever forget his quip in response to the creationist assertion that fossils don't prove evolution: "So you think God played a cosmic joke on humans by creating geology millions of years old and stuffing them with fossils?"

[@saundby]

The correctly stated question would be, "Why haven't you read Stephen Jay Gould?" :-) Personally I have always found his writing to be direct and easy to understand, though it is important to first understand the context from which he is speaking.

[@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640]

I remember when Richard Dawkins tried to summon his space force to kill Gould, but Gould said "Its gouldin time" and goulded all over them. Truly the evolutionary biologist of all time

[@Saskobest]

why were they beefing? can you put it in short sentance main difference between them?

[@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640]

@@Saskobest this is a joke, but Richard Dawkins had such a gene centred view on evolution that many evolutionary biologists including Gould made many critiques on him. Although Gould may not have been much of a critic, but it would make sense if was.

[@Saskobest]

oh ok, tnx for reply!@@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640

[@mozartk453]

Dawkins thought Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium was just a blip on the surface of Darwinian natural selection, and that Gould was egotistically aggrandizing his theory, making it out to be much more of a big deal than it purportedly was. Dawkins was focused on the gene (See "The Selfish Gene") as the primary (really the only) thing natural selection acted on. He was particularly nasty in his critiques of Gould. @@Saskobest

[@juliejames6322]

I have almost every book SJG wrote, started reading them in my 30s and never stopped. I deeply respect and love him, and though I came to disagree with some of his conclusions later in life, I have never lost my admiration for him and my love of his writing style. In fact, I’m gonna pick up The Hedgehog, The Fox, and The Magistrate’s Pox again, one of my very favorites, and reread it for the umpteenth time. Thanks for the impetus.

[@irkendragon]

As an interested layperson I've been wanting to give some of his books a go, thank you for the primer

[@martinlag1]

In summary, 'yes'. Great discussion, Benjamin.

[@jamesbrowne1004]

I grew up reading his articles in Natural History while living on a comparatively remote and wild barrier beach just outside New York City. I was more impressed by his work on fossil snails and a mathematics professor who was an advisor in grad school. Having published in the biologically inspired genetic algorithm in computer science, my math advisor remarked that evolution can occur far faster than biologists thought. Basically, the genetic system is capable of closely tracking substantial changes in the environment and an ecosystem. Organisms that do not are simply not around to be studied. Gould became less singularly impressive as I made my way through ab E&E Ph. D. program, but still relevant. Unfortunately, I had to miss our colloquium when he was the invited speaker, so never had the chance to meet him in person.

[@edwardpaschall4096]

Daniel Dennett in “Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking”criticizes Gould for using rhetorical tools he calls “Gouldings”, e.g. “ratherings”…it’s not blah blah blah…rather it’s blah blah blah. I’ve read nearly every Gould offering and can’t cite a specific example of it. Loved your analysis of a true hero of mine, 2nd only to Darwin. A series of reviews of SJG’s books would be greatly appreciated but probably not practical.

[@MendTheWorld]

Sounds like a somewhat shallow deepity. 🤔 But that's okay.... They don't all have to be the same depth.

[@user-ql2ce5tx5c]

One thing that really interests me is Gould’s rivalry with fellow Harvard evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson. Gould’s tendency you mention to pick an “enemy” to motivate his “opposition” makes me wonder if this motivated Gould’s career in some way. (Wilson, on the other hand, didn’t see Gould as anything other than a pretty self-promotional colleague.) What do you think of Wilson’s work? Did it have any influence on paleontology then or now?

[@darwin6883]

Gould has been largely vindicated. Look at Wilson's sordid support for J. Philippe Rushton.

[@user-ql2ce5tx5c]

@@darwin6883Vindicated about what, exactly? Something scientific, or political (to the extent these are separable)? I’d still be interested in Prof. Burger’s views.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

I found SJG perfectly cogent, honest and quite brilliant.

[@anhammet]

I think he was as brilliant as Asimov and as charming as Sagan, and even a better writer.

[@bromleysimon7414]

For those who might not know, the character of Benjamin Burger is played by Oscar winning actor Richard Dreyfuss.

[@martinfernandez882]

His writings remind me always how profound and important of an endeavor paleontology is. When I first read Gould in high school, Wonderful Life, I was amazed by his musings on archaic lifeforms which were either in a purely analytical, or purely fantasy/fictional context in other media. Although I've disagreed with him some more as I've gotten older, read more literature and spoken to other paleontologists, I still highly appreciate the way he bridges philosophy and sociology with our understanding of natural science, as all people who contemplate science must privately or publicly. He is hard to read but certainly always provides excellent food for thought.

[@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster]

Regardless of any flaws he may have he was a good writer and worth reading if only to see his perspective.

[@ronaldbucchino1086]

I met him at GSA Cincinati way back then,

[@mikesnyder1788]

And I heard him give a talk in Milwaukee in the mid-1990's. A cherished memory!

[@IDKWID_Shaving]

This was a great summary, thank you. I've struggled through a few of his books too - and it's been largely rewarding! - but did always find the writing dense with many weird references to NYC and baseball

[@Ezullof]

That was a very interesting video! thanks you!

[@cdineaglecollapsecenter4672]

That was a great discussion! Thank you!

[@QUIRK1019]

"The 'House Of Leaves' of science writing"?! I'm so in!

[@stevemackelprang8472]

I've read almost all of his books, and obviously enjoyed reading them, did so at the time of publication. However, gave his final big book a go with great anticipation and found it too much work. I'm not a paleontologist, just an interested layman ... but I wasn't that interested.

[@fkasol]

"YES"

[@tamjammy4461]

Gould was such a great writer but its a shame that his views are often misrepresented. Ive heard several 'anti-evolutionists' argue that he 'refuted Darwin'. Gould would have been appalled. No.That's wrong.He'd have taken the time to explain why they were wrong.Both about his own work and Darwin's. Ta for this.I havent read the book you reviewed. Its now on my list.

[@judychurley6623]

I remember that a number of professional evolutionists argued that his book on the Burgess Shale and 'punctuated equilibrium' misrepresented evolution. But I don't know enough to believe one side or another.

[@tamjammy4461]

@@judychurley6623 hi Judy. Ta for your reply. I don't know if you've read "Wonderful Life", Gould's book on the Burgess shale. It's out of date and contains several mistakes ( not so much mistakes, just things where our understanding has changed as new fossils have been found) as would be expected in an old book, but it really is a great read and I'd recommend it to anyone ( actually I recommend it to everyone 😃). I think the reason some people have seen it as an attack on " Darwinism" is because it talks about the "sudden appearance" of different body plans in the evolutionary record. Gould was a paleontologist. For him, 10 or 20 million years counted as sudden. He always accepted the reality of evolution, of Natural selection, and of us having a Universal common ancestor. His disagreements about "punctuated equilibrium" were not about the nature of evolution, but more about how quickly it occurred ( and again , when he used the term "quickly" he always explained that he was talking about millions of years) . This was because, as a paleontologist, he saw gaps in the fossil record and wanted to know why we saw those gaps. The gaps themselves have now largely been filled in , but it's an interesting idea. If you'd like links to his and Niles Elredge's original papers, let me know. The fact that Gould (Elredge much less so) disagreed with the then most widespread understanding of how quickly genetic change took place within species ( he saw it as long periods where little change took place, interrupted by short periods where change took place quickly) was used by some (mainly religious apologists who hadn't read his work ) to claim that he was refuting "Darwinism '. Gould himself thought that view was absurd. Ps. I'm assuming that you are a creationist of some type as you used the term"professional evolutionists" and I've only ever heard creationists refer to someone as an evolutionist. Even if that's the case I'd still recommend "Wonderful life". Just ignore the dates if they worry you ( there aren't many), it's a great story of how science is carried out and reads more like a forensic real crime drama than a science book.

[@kevinf4896]

@@tamjammy4461 Why are you under the belief that punctuated equilibrium has been tossed as a theory. That is manifestly false.

[@tamjammy4461]

@@kevinf4896The answer to your question is that I'm not. I'm sorry if that's the impression which my reply to Judy gave you, but having gone back and read over my reply to her, I don't think that's what it says. To make it clear I'm not saying that punctuated equilibrium is a theory which has been "tossed". I was just pointing out to her that it is not the challenge to evolution which many creationists have been led to believe it is.

[@dancingnature]

I’ve got this tome in hardcover . I love the book but it’s sooo hard to read. Not the subject matter, that book needs a dictionary stand .

[@justbeinghonest5670]

Great video!!😄

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Even Creationists? I’d argue especially Creationists because they view him adversarial to begin with and mostly disinclined to read his ‘dense’ narrative. They’re more likely to misrepresent & strawman him as it is, but would not take the time to properly understand him. A pity.

[@SL-cl9gt]

He’s a Gould writer.

[@paddyodriscoll8648]

I use my copy as a coffee table.

[@benadams6906]

Gould is a giant, you have no place criticizing him. Can’t believe I wasted time watching this.

[@Mythologos]

I just posted a video about this book! kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGeqqmeKjKdqpK8 EDIT: I thought you were building up to a different conclusion. Magnus Opus = Magnum Opus Panaglossian = Panglossian (like Pangloss or as Pangloss would) Regale against = Inveigh against

[@Jackkalpakian]

This was an excellent presentation. I read Gould and liked what he had to say, but the science moved on. He was charged against too many windmills. It would be better to read Nizar Ibrahim today.

[@thomalisiousg4255]

I love evolution

[@germanirish2]

His true passion was baseball, evevolutinary science was "Ok"..but baseball ruled...BTW, try reading his Structure book...good luck.. .

[@TomRNZ]

I've never been able to take him seriously since he didn't perform the test on the angel skeleton for Lisa Simpson. Lazy!

[@christopherhamilton3621]

😂😂😂😂

[@boobio1]

no.

[@HalifaxViewers]

Why do you say it’s a fallacy that progressive evolution is an enemy of evolutionary study. It is incorrect. So how is that a fallacy?

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Assuming ‘progression’ in an anthropic/agentic context is kinda fallacial & Gould even said so, so it’s a silly side-loop on the face of it… Nothing burger.

[@HalifaxViewers]

@@christopherhamilton3621 I literally said it was incorrect. Progressive evolution is incorrect. And this guy said it’s a fallacy that progressive evolution is an enemy of evolutionary study. Progressive evolution is outdated and incorrect so therefore, it is an enemy of evolutionary study. Why do you think it is not?

[@WorthlessWinner]

Should you read a man who openly admits he makes up data to support his conclusions?

[@BenjaminBurgerScience]

Are you referencing the Lewis et al. 2011 paper “The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias?” It is an interesting study where the authors restudied Morton’s collection of skulls (about “half or more” not all), and came to the same conclusion as Morton. Gould’s never measured the specimens, and argued was that the original study was statistically flawed and biased. Anatomical studies have shown the measurement of the cranium on the inside is not really good at discrimination of race, as encephalization quotations need to be allometric scaled to body size, there is also the issue that most measures and study of skulls is rarely a reflection in determining ancestry or race. Here is an example study going into detail: www.researchgate.net/profile/Joe-Hefner/publication/280880022_Assessing_Nonmetric_Cranial_Traits_Currently_used_in_the_Forensic_Determination_of_Ancestry/links/55c9fb5e08aea2d9bdcbdd4d/Assessing-Nonmetric-Cranial-Traits-Currently-used-in-the-Forensic-Determination-of-Ancestry.pdf

[@Ezullof]

Many scientists have made mistakes or done very controversial things to say the least, but they are still regarded as influential figures for their field. It seems to be the case for J. Gould. I'm not a paleontologist, but I can tell you that linguistics and archaeology are full of similar figures, who blew tombs, misinterpretated evidence so they work better with their theory, etc. Let's not forget that modern scientific methodology is very recent in many sciences. It doesn't mean we should just disregard the work of those that came before, and even just right before. If a linguist tells me that Chomsky made mistakes, sometimes intentionally, so they won't read it at all, I'd say it's a bad linguist. You can't create a working environment by being a puritan. Also, let me assure you that if paleontology is anything like historical sciences, many scientists are already there to question and attack each other like rabid vultures for the meakest reasons, and we really don't need to add to this. I'm sure Gould had his own detractors, more or less well-intended and motivated by scientific debate. We should always be able to keep what's interesting or good, while acknowledging what's obsolete or the product of a bad methodology. That's the difference between science and a belief system.

[@comment_section4766]

@@BenjaminBurgerScience "measurement of the cranium on the inside is not really good at discrimination of race" Considering 'race' isn't scientific at all, I'd imagine so.

[@redrum3405]

Yes, Gould was wrong and modern studies have confirmed a difference in brain size between populations. Gould also made the mistake of insinuating Morton was racist when Morton never raised intelligence. Whether brain size has any bearing on IQ variation is still unknown as far as I know

[@kevinf4896]

What are you referencing?