[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.70 MB, 900x750, 1518287454753.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10368878 No.10368878 [Reply] [Original]

>preeminent scientist
>popular science writer
>famous evolutionary biologist

>... wrong about everything

how did this guy get so big to begin with? was it because he catered to the left with ideas against biological determinism and the criticism of IQ tests? he was an awful thinker and contributed nothing to actual non-politically driven science...

>> No.10369039

>>10368878
>wrong about everything
Source?

>> No.10369051

>>10368878
>Hurr durr what are spandrels
The guy reshaped thinking about adaptations

>> No.10369120

>>10369039
Literally every evolutionary scientists these days. Gould believed that all races were exactly the same and was on the "nurture" side of the "nature vs nurture" debate. Those two things alone make him laughable now, but there's a lot more.

>>10369051
Not even his idea.

>> No.10369128

>>10369120
>Not even his idea.
Yes it was you fucking retard.

>> No.10369130

>>10369120
>every evolutionary scientist is wrong
ok /pol/, keep telling yourself that

>> No.10369147

>>10369128
IT came from Richard Lewontin who was an even bigger retard. The guy actually believed genes did not determine our behaviour.

>>10369130
I actually read Mismeasure of Man and Gould bored me to death criticising phrenology without actually making any good arguments against biological determinism.

>> No.10369159
File: 1.47 MB, 1321x1412, Geoffrey Miller, by the way, is a professor of that most rigorous of fields, Evolutionary Psychology.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10369159

>>10368878
>he was an awful thinker and contributed nothing to actual non-politically driven science...
It's just evolutionary psychologists bitching that he called them out
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312363446_Exaptation_Revisited_Changes_Imposed_by_Evolutionary_Psychologists_and_Behavioral_Biologists

>> No.10369167

>>10369147
>IT came from Richard Lewontin who was an even bigger retard.
It came from both him and Gould. Therefore both him and Gould get credit for the idea.
>The guy actually believed genes did not determine our behaviour.
That's a gross mischaracterization. He only advocated an approach to evolutionary behavioral biology that incorporates nurture. This is now the standard, and for good reason.
>who was an even bigger retard
The fucking irony. You're the retard here.

>> No.10369169

>>10369147
>I actually read Mismeasure of Man and Gould bored me to death criticising phrenology without actually making any good arguments against biological determinism.
leave it to /pol/ to defend phrenology

what the fuck are you even doing on this board?

>> No.10369199

>>10369169
I'm not defending phrenology. Attacking phrenology in an evolutionary debate is a motte and bailey fallacy, because nobody advocates phrenology. Gould is intellectually dishonest in that he attacks phrenology (the motte - easy argument) but doesn't attack the baily (evolutionary psychology - difficult argument).

>> No.10369202

>>10369120
>Literally every evolutionary scientists these days.
Source?

>Gould believed that all races were exactly the same and was on the "nurture" side of the "nature vs nurture" debate.
Source?

>Those two things alone make him laughable now, but there's a lot more.
Source?

>> No.10369206

>>10369167
Have you read Sociobiology: The New Synthesis? or any other work of E O WIlson, Jonathan Haidt, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, or any other contemporary evolutionary scientist?

>> No.10369211

>>10369202
E O WIlson, Haidt, Dawkins, John Maynard Smith etc.

Also Dennet, Fortey, Primrose, Kurtz.

I have read the sentence "Gould was plain wrong" in several papers.

>> No.10369216

>>10369206
I don't tend to read pop-sci books, but I do read the primary literature since I'm a biologist. I work on pheromone, contact, and gestural communication in honey bees.

>> No.10369229

>>10369216
Where did I say pop-sci, you fuck? These authors have all written peer-reviewed papers. Now let's get back to the top. Gould was a politically motivated individual and cared more about the status of humanity than science.

>> No.10369243

>>10369229
>Where did I say pop-sci, you fuck?
You say Dawkins you say pop-sci. You also keep bringing up books, not articles. If you're going to make a claim, then be specific.
> Gould was a politically motivated individual and cared more about the status of humanity than science.
Your opinion is worthless to me.

>> No.10369253

>>10369243
You assumed that I was talking about books because you're a projecting little liberal shit that has never read a science journal in their life.

>> No.10369255

>>10369243
>You say Dawkins you say pop-sci.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography

>> No.10369256
File: 213 KB, 750x750, trashbini-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10369256

>>10369206
>Have you read Sociobiology: The New Synthesis? or any other work of E O WIlson, Jonathan Haidt, Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, or any other contemporary evolutionary scientist?

>> No.10369263

>>10369256
>book baed cus disgre wit me

>> No.10369266

>>10369253
>You assumed that I was talking about books
>Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
>Mismeasure of Man
These are books. By contrast, you have mentioned zero articles.

I won't dignify the rest of your post with a response.

>> No.10369273

>>10369256
The most worthless post on all of /sci/. You have literally said nothing but wasted mine time.

>> No.10369284

>>10369266
Davis, Bernard D. (1983). Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press. The Public Interest, 74, 41-59.

Carroll, J. (1995). "Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's the mismeasure of man (1981): A retrospective review". Intelligence. 21: 121–34.

Blinkhorn, Steve (1982). "What Skulduggery?" Nature 296 (April 8): 506.

Humphreys, L. (1983). "Review of The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould". American Journal of Psychology. 96: 407–15.

pussy

>> No.10369294

>>10369211
This is not literally evolutionary scientist. I doubt they would even say every evolutions scientist agrees with them about everything.

And you did not provide a source that says Gould believed all races are the same.

Nor did you show that he is "wrong about everything."

>> No.10369318

>>10369284
>Davis, Bernard D. (1983). Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press. The Public Interest, 74, 41-59.
This is a non peer-reviewed public policy journal. Not a journal that specializes in biology or even general sicence.
>Carroll, J. (1995). "Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's the mismeasure of man (1981): A retrospective review". Intelligence. 21: 121–34.
Actually peer-reviewed, but a technical comment on factor analysis. It makes a point that I agree with.
>Blinkhorn, Steve (1982). "What Skulduggery?" Nature 296 (April 8): 506.
Published in the book-review section of Nature, i.e. non-peer reviewed. It's not a research article, literature review or letter to the editor, which are the only peer-reviewed sections in Nature.
>Humphreys, L. (1983). "Review of The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould". American Journal of Psychology. 96: 407–15.
A proper critique, I can't argue with this one. But that would also be somewhat besides the point.

Look, all these 'articles' are book reviews. I'm pretty sure you don't actually know anything about Gould's scientific work. You know, works that he has written that are not books? It's becoming abundantly clear, and I suppose it should have been clear from the beginning since you didn't even know about spandrels.

>> No.10369380

>>10369318
Funny because Gould was one of the first people I read in the field and what got me into it. Admittedly this thread was rather inflammatory but after having read various perspectives on the subject I think he lost pretty much every debate he was involved in. Yes, that's my worthless opinion.

>> No.10369397

>>10369380
>he lost pretty much every debate he was involved in
I've already brought up an example of a lasting contribution he made. You first questioned that it was even his, then ignored it outright.
>the first people I read
You read mismeasure of man, a non-peer reviewed book. I haven't seen any evidence that you read a single work besides that. You simply keep restating your:
>worthless opinion.
Glad we agree.

>> No.10369410

>>10369397
The first book I read on the topic was actually Wonderful Life. I am now doing an Experimental Psychology masters degree, 6 years since I read that book. Yes Gould was influential but when it came to anything involving people, he was biased.

>> No.10369426 [DELETED] 

>>10369410
>The first book I read
Here we go again...

Look, these are lasting and influental papers by him, all cited over 3000 times:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1966.tb01624.x
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581.short
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581.short

Would you like to critique those? If not, then I'm about done with this thread.

>Yes Gould was influential but when it came to anything involving people, he was biased.
You should really learn to back up statements like this with some form of argument. This is just a statement. There's no substantive line of reasoning involved whatsoever. This is why your opinion is worthless. It's not because you, a psychology student, are arguing against a biologist about the contribution of a biologist to biology, no, it's because you simply do not know how to structure an argument.

>> No.10369430

>>10369410
>The first book I read
Here we go again...

Look, these are lasting and influental papers by him, all cited over 3000 times:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1966.tb01624.x
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581.short
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/exaptationa-missing-term-in-the-science-of-form/A672662BA208D220B9F9A06DE5D804B8

Would you like to critique those? If not, then I'm about done with this thread.

>Yes Gould was influential but when it came to anything involving people, he was biased.
You should really learn to back up statements like this with some form of argument. This is just a statement. There's no substantive line of reasoning involved whatsoever. This is why your opinion is worthless. It's not because you, a psychology student, are arguing against a biologist about the contribution of a biologist to biology, no, it's because you simply do not know how to structure an argument.

>> No.10369460

>>10369430
>you simply do not know how to structure an argument
Ironic, since you are using "it's a book, not a paper" as your central argument. My contentions are that he tried to argue against IQ tests (and racial differences in general) but used phrenology as the strawman, and secondly that he claimed that in humans, natural selection does not play a role in evolution, when it has been shown to. Along with many other points he made through is life, most have been shown to have been misleading, inaccurate, or wrong.

>> No.10369472

>>10369460
> "it's a book, not a paper" as your central argument.
That's because it's a key distinction you fucking moron. You're questioning his contributions to science by arguing against a NON-scientific work of his. The ACTUAL scientific works of his that I have brought up, you have ignored.

You're not looking for a discussion, you're looking for someone to agree with you. And so I'm leaving this thread.

>> No.10369480
File: 152 KB, 1200x1620, ted kaczynski on leftists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10369480

>>10368878
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

>> No.10369492

>>10369472
Do you honestly think I want to discuss non-controversial "scientific findings"? I'm interested in the debates he had on human nature and evolution, the difficult stuff. Not "allometry and size in ontogeny". And the main place he expresses his opinions are in his books. Scientific papers are not for extended discussion and speculative ideas, they are for concrete hypotheses and their supporting arguments, which is easy if the hypotheses are simple and non-controversial.

>> No.10369503

>>10369159
Source on pic?

>> No.10369522

>>10369492
>Do you honestly think I want to discuss non-controversial "scientific findings"?
I'm not that guy but bro you're on the science board, it's for discussing science. you wanna discuss political ideas go to /pol/

>> No.10369525

>>10369522
Fair enough. I'm off then. Bye.

>> No.10370313

>>10369147
>IT came from Richard Lewontin who was an even bigger retard. The guy actually believed genes did not determine our behaviour.

Unlikely. He and Gould (and Boas, and most other racial uniformity pushers) are Jews who want white people to think there's nothing different between them and the third-worlders flooding into all their countries.

>> No.10371550

>>10370313
/pol/ pls go

>> No.10371613

>>10369039
He frauded his data, for example.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_fudge_hi.html

>> No.10371642

>>10371613
>but that's nature, a magazine!
>it's not a peer reviewed journal article!

>> No.10371650

>>10371642
The paper about Gould's fraud was published on PLoS Biology.

>> No.10371956

>>10371650
They never actually called fraud though, the article is much more nuanced

>> No.10372008

>>10369273
The most worthless post on all of /sci/. You have literally said nothing but wasted mine time.

>> No.10372010

>>10372008
The most worthless post on all of /sci/. You have literally said nothing but wasted mine time.

>> No.10372015

>>10372010
The most worthless post on all of /sci/. You have literally said nothing but wasted mine time.

>> No.10372034

>>10369120
>Gould believed that all races were exactly the same

><<<<<<<<<GOULD>>>>>>>>>

>Pushing egalitarianism

Shocked and dismayed

>> No.10372046

>>10369492
>Gould contributed nothing to science
>gets confronted with scientific contributions by Gould
>I don't want to talking about that
Fuck off you stupid faggot

>> No.10372062

>>10372046
It's disingenuous to claim he contributed NOTHING but he had his share of faux pas to be sure

PE is an accurate summation of the rapid accrual of changes in peripheries of arterial ranges.

The Mismeasure of Man is the same level of egalitarian cuck bullshit as Guns, Germs And Steel

>> No.10372373

>>10369273
>>10372008
>>10372010
>>10372015
These four posts are very valuable, and we should cherish them for all time.

>> No.10372386

OK, let me blow your mind.
You can be wrong about everything and still be a good science who does good work.
You can also be right about everything and be a bad scientist who does not useful work.

Life is weird like that. Also Gould is not "wrong about everything".

>> No.10372392
File: 26 KB, 656x465, least rare pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10372392

>>10371613
>blog.nature.com
Not the same thing as Nature, the journal.

>> No.10372502
File: 118 KB, 768x1024, 1546161532745.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10372502

>>10372392
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071

>> No.10372506

He was just another leftist fraudster, like Lysenko and so many others.

>> No.10372549

>>10369216
>I work on pheromone, contact, and gestural communication in honey bees.
neat, tell me more

>> No.10372564

>>10372502
Maybe the SAT score rise and the black student drop are related?

>> No.10372569

Biologist here. I work with plant ecophysiology.
I agree that Gould was a politically motivated fraudster.

>> No.10372575

>>10372564
It seems plausible since niggers on average are borderline retarded.

>> No.10372636

>>10369039
Are you living under a rock?

>> No.10374168

>>10369120
His work mostly had nothing to do with race.

>> No.10374190

>>10369430
>Look, these are lasting and influental papers by him, all cited over 3000 times:
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1966.tb01624.x
>rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581.short
>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/exaptationa-missing-term-in-the-science-of-form/A672662BA208D220B9F9A06DE5D804B8
>Would you like to critique those? If not, then I'm about done with this thread.
The only worthwhile post in this thread.

>> No.10374262

He was a fraudster and a crackpot.

>> No.10374329

>>10372569
>>10374262
Stop samefag bumping your shit thread with shifting goal posts.

>> No.10374346

>>10374329
OP here, I haven't posted in a while, but I can see the IPs number go up, so it's definitely not me or someone samefagging.

>> No.10374672

>>10369169
Look in a mirror.

>> No.10374683

>>10371956
Also if you read it, in a lot of cases it just says "he is wrong", it doesn't explain why

>> No.10374690

>>10368878
I really enjoyed his books though. I especially liked his article on the human obsession of "authenticity". I'd never seen anyone discuss that kind of thing before.

>> No.10374724

>>10374690
You mean philosophical authenticity? That topic is as old as science itself. What were his main ideas?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/

>> No.10374745

>>10374346
>>10374672
>posts two hours after last
>claiming this is a new poster
fuck off OP, stop bumping

>> No.10374749

>>10374745
Can you see the number of unique posters in the thread? Do you notice it's going up? Yeah, that's because new people are joining the thread you spastic. Some of us browse by catalogue which is why we reply to old threads.

>> No.10374763

>>10374749
> Do you notice it's going up?
Except it didn't between the two posts I quoted you stupid shit

>> No.10374790

>>10369051
>spandrels
Maybe he should have given them a non-retarded name.