Customer Reviews

Dawkins Vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest (Revolutions in Science)

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As anyone who has read even one book on evolution will know the names most likely to be mentioned are Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. They are usually referred to not only for their very different views on evolution, but also because in the often contentious and very public debates on these issues, these two gentlemen act as champions for opposing camps. Gould through his books, but also famously in a series of articles and letters in the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS. Dawkins prefers to limit his books to scientific arguments and rebuttals and reserves his critical comments for his public engagements.

With a title DAWKINS vs GOULD the focus is naturally on these two combatants and because both are brilliant thinkers and prolific writers it makes for some stimulating and very interesting reading. The only problem with this book is that by narrowly limiting the discussion to these two men, some readers may remain unaware that they are merely representative of a much larger debate involving most of the scientific community. A debate that covers topics such as human morphology and intelligence, human origins, intelligent design vs creationism. The field of enquiry involved is much wider than evolution and includes genetics, sociobiology, primatology and paleontology to name a few.

As it relates to the two specific positions of DAWKINS vs GOULD though this litte book offers a concise and fairly complete encapsulation of the subject. Dawkins' position is sometimes called reductionist or minimalist in that he sees the gene (a selfish one) as the principal explanatory agent. From it, all we see around us are adaptations. Gould has a more catholic or broader approach and sees exceptions to the rule. Chance and his pet subject of "punctuated equilibrium" are seen as interrupting the smooth progression of linear adaptive evolution. Gould believes that there is a limit to scientific explanations but Dawkins is of the view that testable and provable hypotheses exist as explanations for all seemingly random events. This view is called "Ultra-Darwinism".

Although Gould may have a catholic view in the normative sense of the word with an expansive view, don't for a minute think that this extends in any way to be accomodating towards creationism. Just about the only area where Gould and Dawkins don't knock heads is in their dissmissive view of creationism's equally dismissive view of the reality of evolution.

Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould are prominent evolutionary biologists. Both are great writers and both are extremely contentious. Moreover, they disagree in public forums with a startling level of invective. Kim Sterelny is a philosopher with a solid background in evolutionary theory, and in this book tells the tale of their disagreements with skill and journalistic polish.

Despite the bitterness of the debate, most of the issues Dawkins and Gould disagree on are either unscientific (e.g., militant atheism vs. tolerance for religion and other non-scientific forms of knowing) or matters of interpretive preference (e.g., the role of chance vs. selection in evolution, the extent to which evolution involves increasing complexity, the importance of population genetics vs. the study of large-scale patterns in the history of life, or the view of evolution as a conflict of genes vs. an organic conflict among species-level and higher biological forms). Other issues that separate them relate to the schools of thought to which they belong---Dawkins' friends being the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists (G. Williams, W. Hamilton, E. O. Wilson, et al.) and Gould's being the left-wing critics of sociobiology (R. Lewontin, L. Kamin, et al.). By limiting the debate to Dawkins and Gould alone, the book does not flesh out this larger, and quite interesting intellectual opposition.

Sterelny neither takes sides nor tries to adjudicate the differences between these writers, though he does say that their differences appear to be narrowing over time. Being less unpresuming, I assess the situation as follows. Dawkins' gene-centered view makes for good journalism, but is fatally flawed for one simple reason: the heart of evolution is mutation and selection, not replication, which is simply an uncreative prerequisite for evolution. A mutation can spread only if it is more fit that existing alleles, and fitness is a frequency dependent, highly nonlinear phenomenon, best described by game theory on the level of phenotypes. Gould's mass extinctions and punctuated equilibria make perfect sense from evolutionary game theory, and involve nothing beyond mutation, selection, and replication. On the other hand, Gould's dismissal of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are ideologically based and quite without merit.

Sterelny describes a debate that is more a reflection of the expansive egos of two great popularizers, and their inability to understand, or their reluctance to publicize, the work of younger generations of evolutionary biologists, rather than some real scientific clash of paradigms. But if it gets young people interested in evolutionary biology, I'm all for it, and Sterelny does a good job of dramatizing the debate.

I found Kim Sterelny's review to be a very accurate yet understandable summary. I have read many books written by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, so I already had a rough sketch of their contention. Sterelny's book was a great way to solidify the nature of Gould and Dawkins' scientific conflict and a great way to fill in the gaps.

I was particularly grateful by the Gould section. Dawkins has stated his views on evolution and Gould quite extensively, but I have been less exposed to Gould's original writings on punctuated equilibrium (probably because, as Sterelny noted, Gould has written about the subject mostly in essays and scientific papers). The Gould section in this book was a great clarification of punctuated equilibrium and other Gould theories.

I have not heard the opinions of the title subjects on this book, although I would very much like to. But for the moment, I found 'Dawkins vs. Gould' to be an objective, impartial and fair description of this well-known scientific clash.

Kim Sterelny's overview of the Stephen Gould - Richard Dawkins conflicting views of evolution is a masterful summation. Setting himself an immense task, he addresses the material published by the two evolutionists, assessing evidence, logic and interpretation. To Sterelny's lasting credit, personality is almost entirely omitted in this account. A brief education background note [Dawkins studied under Tinbergen, Gould's mentor was George Gaylord Simpson] and Sterelny moves quickly to the essence of the debate. His presentation makes this a fine introduction to the issues involved.

Debate is a gentle word to apply to some of the acrimonious exchanges the pair engaged in either directly or through proxies. The opening shot was Gould's scornful review of Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" in which Dennett challenged Gould and Eldredge's notion of punctuated equilibrium as setting the pace of evolution. The clash brought to light more fundamental differences in outlook - gene-centred evolution or a multi-level interacting set of forces. As Sterelny ultimately points out, the two are subject to merging into a broader synthesis. Dawkins has made that point frequently, as Sterelny notes, but that reality failed to find fertile ground on this side of the Atlantic.

Gene-centred evolution results in the creation of adaptations through mutations. Whether these adaptations are successful over time is the story of evolution. Gould found many ways to challenge this theme, chiefly because it would apply equally to human evolution, something Gould always found abhorrent. Gould's argument went deeper than human evolution. He advanced "contingency" and mass extinctions of whatever cause, as more viable mechanisms than what he labelled "gene centrism". Sterelny presents both positions with admirable clarity and laudable equilibrium. It would be churlish to criticise Sterelny's temperate treatment of Gould's notions. Dawkins and Dennett have already performed the task sufficiently, although Sterelny skirts Dennett's examination.

The loss of Gould to cancer has not quelled the debate, thus proving it wasn't simply a clash of personalities. A Gould "camp", with adherents on both sides of the Atlantic, maintains the heated dispute. Lewontin and Kamin in America and the Rose cabal in the UK still launch verbal missiles at the Dawkins target. Sterelny keeps his focus tight in this book, not being diverted to these disputants. In performing this feat, Sterelny might be criticised for failing to note why the debate is worth notice by a wider audience. He certainly hasn't written this for the academic community, although many in other disciplines might benefit from his insights and brisk narrative. Sterelny's position as a philosopher located in New Zealand is sufficient example to show how far the debate has reached. Its very universality might have prompted him to reflect on its impact on social questions. Even so, his effort is highly commendable and deserves the widest possible readership. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Interested in the genuine scientific (and philosophical controversy) about evolution? Before starting on the first chapter of Stephen Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", try "Dawkins versus Gould" by Kim Sterelny. It is about the same length as Chapter One of Gould's magnum opus and coherently discusses the profound differences between these two great evolutionary biologists. This book should be a must-read for anyone interested in evolution.

Anyone looking for a readable short and unbiased ('Dawkinsite' in opinions, but he still gives Gould a lot of credit) overview of current arguments in evolutionary theory, then this is your book

I am of a few minds about this book. It has both positive and negative characteristics, depending upon the questions one asks of it.

On the one hand, this is a book about evolution. Given that many parts of society still cling to their various Creation Myths, any source that provides a rational framework for discussion about how the world works should be highly rated indeed. Sterelny provides a biological basis sufficient to spark interest in a virgin mind. If you don't know anything about evolution or evolutionary theory, then Dawkins vs. Gould (as opposed to not reading on the subject at all) is perhaps worthwhile.

On the other hand, Dawkins vs. Gould is clearly the work of an under-informed, non-biologist. The debate from both sides of the Adaptationist Programme (i.e., the school of thought whence all evolutionary change results from natural selection) runs much deeper than just being between a well-spoken advocate, Dawkins, and Gould, an articulate critic. Stated plainly, Sterelny provides a passable popular account of the brilliant popular works of Dawkins and Gould. The question becomes, Why not simply read The Extended Phenotype, Wonderful Life and the like?

On yet a third limb, I was somewhat disappointed by the physical volume of Dawkins vs. Gould. For the quality of the binding and grade of paper, I would have expected to pay half as much as the price suggested on the back cover.

So, to sum up... Dawkins vs. Gould by Kim Sterelny is better than nothing, but the well-stocked library of evolution will not miss it.

In this book Kim Sterelny attempts to lay out the views ofboth Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. The first section discusses Dawkins ideas, the second Gould and his successors and finally there is a bit of analysis. It is pretty workmanlike and a good intro for the somewhat informed, but the author is, admittedly at the end, biased toward Dawkins positions, interestingly enough on the nature of science issue more than any matters with evolutionary theory.

This is readily apparent throughout the book, when Sterelny admitted his favoring Dawkins more, I was hardly surprised, due to the structure of the earlier arguments. In the Dawkins sections each Dawkins position is explained, a Gouldian objection is pointed out and then the author points how Dawkins didn't really mean it that way. The Dawkins' objections to Gould are basically unanswered.

Personally I can see the authors point and really Gould did have a tendency in his work toward straw man arguments, but Dawkins is not all that dissimilar and has always liked to fudge points when confronted on evolutionary issues while slamming down on any deviation he sees from orthodoxy. But the fervor of this dispute with its transatlantic qualities is ill served by this account. Interestingly enough from my American eyes, E. O. Wilson is trotted out when he contradicts Gould, but not with Dawkins.

Reading all this you are probably wondering why I gave it three rather than two stars. This is because it is quite readable and brief and does a pretty good job of summarizing the issues, even if it tends to muddy them. Given that, in my opinion at least, the "truth" probably lies somewhere in between and perpendicular to both this does not really harm the book all that much but it doesn't help much in forwarding the books stated purpose.

This is a basically successful book, encapsulating some of the disputes in evolution, particularly between Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould. For someone who just wants the basics of the dispute without having to wade through lengthy or complex material, it is perfect.

I think it could be improved, though. Sterelny doesn't have particularly good notes, more like a recommended reading list. It is not easy to tell exactly where he is getting his statements. He points, for example, to Dawkin's criticism of Gould & Eldridge Punctuated Equilibrium as a gloss in The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. Sterelny regards this as unfair, but I actually thought it was quite good. I think his criticism as regards local population changes is entirely fair. Sterelny argues that he is not taking into account the portion of the theory that deals with speciation. But exactly where, in the various iterations is the latter point? I don't remember it in the original article - is this my failing memory, or is that a later development, perhaps after The Blind Watchmaker was written? I'll have to dig up and reread all the articles to find out, whereas a simple citation might have made it immediately clear.

I also felt that Sterelny did not discuss the problem of definitions thoroughly enough. He does this with the question of increasing fitness, pointing out that this may true over the history of a particular species, but perhaps not true between different species separated by long time spans. I think this is true of many issues of contention. Part of the issue of the role of chance in evolution depends upon whether or not one considers mass extinctions to be part of evolution specifically, or rather a feature of natural history that changes the conditions under which evolution operates. One of the criticisms of Gould, such as Dawkins aforementioned criticism of Punctuated Equilibrium, is that he exaggerates the novelty of his ideas. In these cases, his critics don't so much disagree with what he is saying as argue that he is producing useful glosses or drawing out implications that are true, but not revolutionary, and that in the process, he distorts other people's work, notably Darwin's.

Certainly worth reading. I think that Sterelny often explains the two combatants' positions more clearly than they themselves do. Those interested in pinning down the subject more firmly will regret the lack of citations, but there are numerous recommendations for further reading, tied to particular subjects by chapter.

One of the wonders of the Internet was supposed to be the way it could get niche ideas and products into the hands of the very few who might be interested in them, and I am happy to report that it seems to be working. There cannot be a great mass of people who are (a) both aware of and highly interested in the conflict between evolutionary biology popularizers Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, but (b) lacking in sufficient time and education to satisfy their curiosity from primary materials. But for those few who are, as I was, interested in a layperson's outline of the points of conflict between the Dawkins and Gould camps, Kim Sterelny has written one.

Sterelny, a philosophy professor, is strict about giving credit to each camp where credit is due, and about identifying his own biases. He bends over backwards to be fair, and he succeeds.

Sterelny writes at such a level that if your only education in evolutionary biology comes from popular works like Dawkins's and Gould's, his overview is entirely comprehensible. Though this was good for me, it means that he is probably writing far below the level of most people interested in the convroversies he describes.

I suppose it is odd for someone who actually is in the market for a book just like the one Sterelny wrote to wonder who would actually buy such a book, but that is the position I find myself in. One really should be at least somewhat familiar with the Dawkins/Gould divide before reading this book, but if you are too familiar with it, that means you have education enough that this book is pitched too low for you. Those on the razor's edge will get the most out of it. And the delight of the Internet is that there is a good chance enough of that rare breed of people can find this book that it was worth writing, and that those of you in the narrow audience that will find it worth reading -- as I did -- are able to find it.