Dawkins vs. Gould

[T'ai Chi]

Which one of their views on evolution to people think is 'right'?

I offer an informal poll. :)

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Which one of their views on evolution to people think is 'right'?

I offer an informal poll. :)

You need to redo the poll so I can vote for both. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not particularly exclusive unless oversimplfied.

[athon]

Originally posted by jj


You need to redo the poll so I can vote for both. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not particularly exclusive unless oversimplfied.

I agree, and in some essays I've read, apparently so do the contenders themselves. Methods of evolution are not cut and dried. There are instances of punctuated equilibrium which sustain speciation, and gradualism which can also produce species.

If it came down to a boxing match, my money is on Dawkins, simply because I something of a 'memetics' fan.

Athon

[T'ai Chi]

As I understand it, Dawkin's approach was that evolution was primarily gene-centered (gradual), while Gould's was primarily contingency and mass extinction centered (stasis and punctuated equilibrium).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As I understand it, Dawkin's approach was that evolution was primarily gene-centered (gradual), while Gould's was primarily contingency and mass extinction centered (stasis and punctuated equilibrium).

They are not mutually exclusive, T'ai Chi. Your poll is misleading.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by jj


You need to redo the poll so I can vote for both. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not particularly exclusive unless oversimplfied.
Good point, although I voted for Dawkins.
Here (http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/commentary/thurtle.html)is a good summary of the Gould/Dawkins debate written by Phillip Stevens Thurtle in which he says -
One thing we can be sure of--we should never expect nor want Gould and Dawkins to agree. For a successful scientific discipline should not be measured by the amount of agreement among its members, but the total number of questions that the discipline allows to be asked.

[Peter Soderqvist]

S J Gould has said that the evolution is jerkier than Dawkins has said!
There is no evidence today to solve this minor dispute; maybe further research will bring forward the solution! A parallel can be drawn to history; It took the Israelites 40 years to get to Palestine, but that doesn't mean that they gradually traveled 24 yards a day, nobody knows how smooth or jerkier their traveling was either! The Creationists has misrepresented Gould by alleging that his Punctuated Equilibrium support saltation, but that is want we should suspect, because to misrepresent science is the hallmark of Creationism!

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
S J Gould has said that the evolution is jerkier than Dawkins has said!
There is no evidence today to solve this minor dispute; maybe further research will bring forward the solution! A parallel can be drawn to history; It took the Israelites 40 years to get to Palestine, but that doesn't mean that they gradually traveled 24 yards a day, nobody knows how smooth or jerkier their traveling was either! The Creationists has misrepresented Gould by alleging that his Punctuated Equilibrium support saltation, but that is want we should suspect, because to misrepresent science is the hallmark of Creationism!
Richard Dawkins himself, in The Blind Watchmaker, yes?

[Graham]

Can anyone recommend a good link comparing the two views?

Thanks,

Graham

Edit to add - sorry, missed Dragon's link above - thanks Dragon

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by Dragon

Richard Dawkins himself, in The Blind Watchmaker, yes?

Soderqvist1: yes my message was not from the top off my head!
The Israelite metaphor stems from The Blind Watchmaker, just as Equilibrium is species, and punctuation is speciation, and thus literally interpretation of the word gradual (24 yards per day in the desert) is not compatible with the word species, the Punctuated Equilibrium is a minor wrinkle on the Darwinian Stance!

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by Graham
Can anyone recommend a good link comparing the two views?

Thanks,

Graham

Edit to add - sorry, missed Dragon's link above - thanks Dragon

The Gould Files on Richard Dawkins unofficial home side!
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/the_g_files.htm

[Dancing David]

Uh, no vote, they botyh have a convergant philospohy!

[arcticpenguin]

I was unable to read the opening post because that poster earned his way onto m yignore list long ago. Therefore I assume the poll is about a wrestling match or other fight. I'd have to give the nod to Dawkins, because I think Gould is still dead.

[hgc]

I have many times recommended on this board the book Dawkins vs Gould (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1840463686/qid=1068223140/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-4756077-2657607?v=glance&s=books), by Kim Sterelny. It gives an excellent explaination, for non-Biologists/non-Paleontologists such as myself, of what the whole disagreement is about. I had long been a Gould fan, having read all his columns from Natural History Magazine, and most of his books (in addition to those comprising his columns). But in reading this book, I came down more in favor of Dawkins view, somewhat, remembering that most of the argument is over my head anyway. I was surprised to find find out that some of the implications of the disagreement relate to the athiest/non-atheist divide.

[neutrino_cannon]

While there was considerable disagreement over th exact course and nature of evolution, Dawkins and Gould disagreed on many other things too.

Gould espoused non-overlapping magesteria, the conviction that science and religion ought not interfere if both are applied to their correct spheres of life. Dawkins, who is one of the biggest and most important atheist activists today, would probably argue (I'm less aquainted with his work) that religion is an outdated and ultimately deletarious meme.

[Psi Baba]

This poll implies that only one of them is "right." Fortunately, the process that we call science does not involve voting. And because this is a vastly complex topic, it is highly probable that both are correct in many of their assertions, and that both are slightly mistaken in a few others.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
This poll implies that only one of them is "right."


I guess some could see it that way, but I didn't mean it that way at all, hence 'right' in quotes.

They do disagree about things as far as I understand.


Fortunately, the process that we call science does not involve voting.


Uh, no s***! :)

Hence an informal poll to inquire about peoples' opinions.

[roger]

Well, Dawkins has a deceptively strong jab combined with good footwork and a longer reach. However, he tends to get in trouble when clinched in a corner. Gould, being heavier and a bit of an infighter, will use this to his advantage, and land some telling blows with his very powerful uppercuts. This is offset by Gould's demise, which will probably negatively affect his speed. So I'm offering 7-5 odds on Dawkins assuming he comes in at under 180.