Re: Gould Evolution big book



Rick Wagler wrote:
> "JAE" <jae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1117663307.533832.154020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > mark@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> JAE wrote:
> >> > [snip]
> >>
> >> Is that big "recent" SJGould book on Evolution (looks about 1000 pgs) a
> >> good one to read for the synthetic concepts?
> >
> > Haven't really spent much (any) time with that one, but I found Gould's
> > takes to be pretty good on theory, if a bit sidetracked. He certainly
> > had a good feel for evolutionary pluralism.
> >
> > Futayama's stuff if not as accessible, tends to be very good. Larry
> > Moran has some good summaries with references on the Talk.origins faqs
> > and he may have commented on Gould's book.
> >
> Another good book from a paleontologists perspective
> is Steven Stanley's Macroevolution. All the classics
> Simpson, Mayr, Dobzhansky etc - not to mention the Big
> Guy himself - should be got around to by anyone
> seriously interested in the subject. I'm in the process
> of going through Gould's book and it is a good read
> especially on the history of the concept and the development
> of the modern synthesis. He does quite a number on Dawkins
> which Algis should probably take a look at :-)

>>From the perspective of science attempting to achieve a
principle based underlying theory, the new synthesis
(sometimes called the modern synthesis) is a mess.
Mostly it involves a plethora of vague and ambiguous
terminology and it relies greatly on the fact that most
the audience lacks the intellectual fortitude to achieve
a level of rigour that would allow them to realize that
much of the time the concepts being discussed, drift
being a perfect example, are the result of this vague
and/or ambiguous terminology and not the result of
empirical observation. It's an incredibly difficult
subject, chalk full of all kinds of philosophical
pitfalls. A lot of the concepts persist not because
they are valuable or useful but because the philophical
implications of the valuable and useful alternatives are
so stark (especially when it comes to man's belief in
free will). No easy answers here folks.

Science ain't for sissies.

Jim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... all you are doing is making vague assertions ... You've been given many links to science sites which define hypothesis ... personal opinions without question like a kid at Micheal Jackson's ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do
    ... The burden of proof is on your shoulders, you vague nitwit. ... Asking you to support your vague thinking is dishonest? ... Science is a process, not a conclusion, you mental retard. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
    ... back and explain how someone could 'show' you dark matter. ... I'll show you that bucket if you can explain how the bucket is supposed ... or indeed any science classes ... You seem to be vague on the whole business of how science is done. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Looking for problem solving books
    ... I guess I am being vague because to my ... > that teaches general problem solving techniques and provides exercises ... The specific area of science isn't ... > reinforcing good problem solving strategies. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Can Wolverine drown?
    ... "on a molecular level" (using Claremont-speak). ... vague description, one can even argue nonsensical by real world ... science, but what I think is being described is some sort of ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks)