So farewell, then . . .
May. 21st, 2002 12:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zotzStephen Jay Gould has died of cancer. CNN obit here.
I don't know what to say. If you haven't read any of his essays, then you probably should. He was a prominent (and brilliant) evolutionary theorist and advocate. I'm not entirely in agreement with him on the technical issues, but his essays on biology and (often extremely tenuously related) topics are wonderful. His field of interest seemed to be "all knowledge", and reading his work is an education in itself. He also gave it all a very human feel - some people do, and some don't, give the impression that they are interested in and care about people generally. He did. His writing isn't dry and technical. It's warm, and alive. Some have criticiced it for being too easy and persuasive, jumping too smoothly over disputed points. But read it anyway. It's not perfect, but it's all good.
I don't know what to say. If you haven't read any of his essays, then you probably should. He was a prominent (and brilliant) evolutionary theorist and advocate. I'm not entirely in agreement with him on the technical issues, but his essays on biology and (often extremely tenuously related) topics are wonderful. His field of interest seemed to be "all knowledge", and reading his work is an education in itself. He also gave it all a very human feel - some people do, and some don't, give the impression that they are interested in and care about people generally. He did. His writing isn't dry and technical. It's warm, and alive. Some have criticiced it for being too easy and persuasive, jumping too smoothly over disputed points. But read it anyway. It's not perfect, but it's all good.
Re: Yeah, I looked twice
Date: 2002-05-21 09:05 am (UTC)Re: Yeah, I looked twice
Date: 2002-05-23 04:05 pm (UTC)As far as Gould/Dawkins and quality of science goes, I'm not a biologist or similar, and hence was relying on opinions of people who are -- but I do agree that Dawkins is an opinionated git who does seeem to allow his opinions get in the way of his arguments. I always thought it was good that Gould, for instance, is the sort of person who would be likely to take on a Creationist and argue sufficiently convincingly to demolish them -- while Dawkins would seem likely to just turn away and sneer.
Re: Yeah, I looked twice
Date: 2002-05-23 04:24 pm (UTC)Dawkins in manages-not-to-lose-temper shock. Hoodathunkit?