Customer Reviews

An Urchin in the Storm: Essays About Books and Ideas

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

 

 

An Urchin in the Storm by Stephen Jay Gould is about books and ideas, but more so about writing, thinking and study in method.

An Urchin in the Storm is divided into five different sections. The first two sections of this book group reviews that discuss the irreductibility of history, along the way the pleasures and challenges of contingency, in its two principle domains of life and the earth. The first section on evolution focuses upon structuralist and hisoricist alternatives. While the second, explains nature's complexity, (Evolutionary Theory, Time and Geology).

The third section of this book explores the theory and consequences, both political and intellectual, of biological determinism. The fourth section deals with "Four Biologists." While the fifth works with "In Praise of Reason." As we read on throughout this book, Gould makes his point and scores, as he exposes fallacies, expands on geology, give thought to biological determinism, and gives the reader a clearer picture of evolutionary theory.

This is a fascinating little book, as Gould works through this little tome, like the urchin, always presenting a tough exterior and continues to prickle the enemy.

These essays, many of which appeared in New York Review of Books, contain some of Gould's finest writing. What makes it very fun is the way he critiques the ideas of others while telling stories and analysing their perspective. If you want a critical vantage on sociobiology, this is a great place to start. You can also read a wonderful review of Turning Point by Frijof Capra, which Gould finds wanting because it is full of assertions that are ultimately unproven. I would agree, but I did see a lot of merit in Capra's ideas of holistic science as well, which represented a precurser to complexity theory. Then there is Gould's trenchent critique of Jeremy Rifkin, whom he says lacks integrity because of his scientific sloppiness and the tendentiousness of his many errors - interesting because one would imagine they would be on the same side on many issues. Through it all, Gould appears as a tolerant spirit, advancing his perspective while respecting that of others with a critical gaze.

Of course, there is Gould's inimitable style: so graceful and flowing that each is like a succulent hors d'oeuvre or some variety of Turkish delight. I honestly think that the quality of this writing is on a par with Emerson or Thoreau. It is the profoundest of literary talents.

Warmly recommended. He was one of our very very best.

As I sat down to read this, I was disappointed to discover that it was less a collection of essays than reviews, for Gould is at his best when writing natural history essays. Still, many of the reviews lapsed into essay, as he used the authors' books to free-verse his own thoughts, as well as commenting on their writing abilities.

Gould is consistently suitably humble in his approach to these other authors, knowing that he himself writes and is reviewed. If you weed through the irrelevant data on books written decades ago that no one any longer reads, there are some great gems in Urchin, deep thoughts that reveal the real nature of science, biology, and evolution. I have found it helpful to use certain quotes in the classroom to help my students understand what science truly is. In particular I was pleased to see McPhee's Basin and Range, a book that I fell in love with in Prothero's Geology classes in college, for it was so exquisitely written and accurate in describing the geology of the American Mountain West. I also enjoyed Gould's rightful take-down of Jeremy Rifkin in Algeny. Back in high-school debates on genetic engineering, I often ran into Rifkin's name, used whenever an opponent wanted a quote from someone who opposed biotechnology- whether or not the one quoted had real qualifications. Rifkin is a pseudo-scientific hack who has opposed any advances in biotechnology for decades using populist anti-science sentiments. I am pleased to see Gould pointing out the man's numerous flaws in thinking.

Stephen Jay Gould loved biology. He loved science, and evolution, and logical thinking. This is his unquenchionable pursuit throughout his life, and throughout this book. His joy comes out in his writing. This was perhaps most clear to me in his discussion of a quote by McPhee. "All of geology can be summarized in one sentence. The top of Mount Everest is made of marine limestone."

Take a moment, pause, contemplate what that means, and enjoy the delight of discovery with Gould.

We all should get used to the quality imprinted by Gould in all of his books. This is not the exception, it's a mixture of a first level researcher, a great scientific communicator and a non paralel author in the amplitude of his culture and great sense of humour and use of english. This and all his books most be devoured by everyone interested on science.

For a collection of disparate essays this hangs together in the classic Steve Gould style. If you're a 'fan', this is a book you may have missed, but its definitely a 'must have'

I just read this SJ Gould book of reviews and essays. Gould had a brilliant mind and is highly missed. The essays are complex, and the points well made. As always I give my full trust to Gould's wise opinion.

In contrast to the previous rather bitter review, I think this is a very good book and a lot better than the the racism masquerading as science that is the Bell Curve - which Gould has read and demolished.
In terms of factor analysis, I used the Urchin in the Storm to teach factor analysis it's that clear and concise. Stuff the political viewpoint just read some very good essays.

This book is, essentially, a series of reviews belittling other authors. As such, I have no misgivings writing this review. Aside from the last two essays, which attack anti-scientific charlatans, this book is simply the author praising himself and trying to write the "politically correct" line. For example, the author viciously attacks the idea of there being, in part, a genetic basis of intelligence. Intelligence, like height, is an example of multifactoral inheritance(Well described in "the Bell Curve" by Herrnstein and Murray-a good book to buy. The author ignores all the evidence gives a very confused interpretation of "factor analysis"(after stating that he is the only author who has been capable to explaining this topic to layman)then says, after muddying the waters, see, there is no basis for the arguments. In another essay, he agrees with another author that the social function of science is to create a socialist society. Excuse me, the function of science is to describe how the universe works. As for priase of socialism, spend some time in Eastern Europe, which has only recently escaped from its grip. In conclusion, as the author strays further and further away from his topic of evolutionary biology(specifically, he studies land snails), his books have become progressively worse and more politically correct. This book is simply political correctness masquerading as science.