Richard Dawkins contra Stephen Jay Gould

Revolutions in Science

by Kim Sterelny

La historia de la ciencia está repleta de rivalidades y conflictos: Newton discutió con Leibniz sobre la naturaleza del espacio, Edison y Tesla fueron protagonistas de la famosa «guerra de las corrientes», Einstein rebatió públicamente la teoría cuántica de Bohr..., y en el campo de la biología, la disputa entre Dawkins y Gould es célebre debido a su intensidad, su duración (más de dos décadas) y su relevancia científica.

Richard Dawkins, autor de El gen egoísta y El relojero ciego, concibe la evolución como una lucha entre linajes genéticos. Stephen Jay Gould, que escribió La vida maravillosa y La falsa medida del hombre, la ve como una lucha entre organismos. Para Dawkins, los principios de la biología evolutiva se aplican igual a los humanos que a los demás seres vivos; para Gould, la sociobiología es incorrecta y peligrosa.

Dawkins ha sido descrito muchas veces como un reduccionista enloquecido, capaz de reducir la variedad y complejidad de la vida a la lucha por la existencia entre genes ciegos y egoístas. En cambio, Gould ha sido utilizado —erróneamente— por los creacionistas para rechazar los principios fundamentales del darwinismo.

En este libro, Kim Sterelny nos guía a través de las principales diferencias entre las concepciones de la evolución y la ciencia de Dawkins y Gould y nos ofrece una nueva oportunidad de redescubrir el universo de la biología evolutiva.

Genres: Science, Evolution, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Biology, Stem, Natural History

256 pages, Paperback

First published May 31, 2001

About the author

After studying philosophy at Sydney University, Kim Sterelny taught philosophy in Australia at Sydney, ANU (where he was Research Fellow, and then Senior Research Fellow, in Philosophy at RSSS from 1983 until 1987), and La Trobe Universities, before taking up a position at Victoria University in Wellington, where he held a Personal Chair in Philosophy. For a few years he spent half of each year at Victoria University and the other half of each year with the Philosophy Program at RSSS, but from 2008 he has been full-time at ANU.

Sterelny has been a Visiting Professor at Simon Fraser University in Canada, and at Cal Tech and the University of Maryland, College Park, in the USA. His main research interests are Philosophy of Biology, Philosophy of Psychology and Philosophy of Mind. He is the author of The Representational Theory of Mind and the co-author of Language and Reality (with Michael Devitt) and Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology (with Paul Griffiths). He is Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. In addition to philosophy, Kim spends his time eating curries, drinking red wine, bushwalking and bird watching.

http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/profile/ki...

Reviews

[Julio Bernad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Como toda ciencia, la biología evolutiva ha tenido a sus titanes, sus rock-stars, aquellas figuras lo suficientemente famosas y mediáticas como para lograr convertirse en el rostro de toda una disciplina y el referente que condujera a la siguiente generación a buen puerto. La astrofísica tuvo a Carl Sagan, que derrochaba carisma por los cuatro costados. La biología evolutiva, carente de todo sex-appeal -pues ninguna ciencia construida sobre pinzones y guisantes puede tenerlo-, tuvo el bigote de Stephen Jay Gould y al siempre pendenciero Richard Dawkins.

Stephen Jay Gould pasará a la historia como uno de los grandes divulgadores científicos de la historia natural y la historia de la ciencia, aunque su mayor aportación -que no la única- a la teoría evolutiva será el equilibrio puntuado, una desviación del gradualismo darwiniano que dice que las especies no evolucionan a la misma velocidad, sino que hay momentos de estabilidad ambiental en que apenas se aprecia variación -estasis- y puntos en que los cambios se suceden con tal velocidad que no dejan evidencias en el registro fósil. Richard Dawkins pasará a la historia por su incansable lucha contra el fanatismo religioso y el creacionismo y su defensa de los valores científicos y el pensamiento escéptico, aunque su mayor aportación -que no la única- a la teoría evolutiva será el gen egoísta, un cambio de la unidad de selección de especie a gen, convirtiendo a los seres vivos en meros vehículos controlados por los genes que los construyen. Ambos científicos, paleontólogo el primero y zoólogo el segundo, son biólogos evolutivos cuyo pensamiento se ajusta al paradigma actual representado por la síntesis evolutiva de mediados del siglo XX, y ambos son, en parte, disidentes dentro de dicho paradigma, pues varios conceptos e ideas no se ajustan a este modelo. Pero en esto consiste la ciencia: en disentir.

Richard Dawkins y Stephen Jay Gould, como tótems conscientes de su posición académica y mediática, chocaron. Y chocaron mucho. Sus debates, que se sucedían en revistas en forma de críticas y comentarios y en intervenciones en congresos, se hicieron muy populares e incluso tuvieron cierta difusión entre el público no especialista. Este libro trata sobre esta pugna. Pero ojo, desprovisto totalmente de sensacionalismo. Aquí no vamos a ver dos tertulianos echándose enumerando agravios e intercambiando ataques personales, sino dos posturas científicas excelentemente argumentadas que, por supuesto, no siempre son antagónicas ni siempre se enfrentan.

Si a lo largo de la reseña que he hecho a este libro os habéis perdido, no os sintáis culpables. Este no es un libro de divulgación, su contenido no es accesible al aficionado o al lego. Kim Sterelny hace un trabajo excelente a la hora de resumir y transmitir todos los conceptos, pero ninguno de ellos va a ser fácilmente aprehensible a alguien que no tenga conocimientos en esta materia, y no conocimientos superficiales. Sí, es un libro para muy cafeteros.

¿Qué quién gana en este enfrentamiento? Partiendo de que los debates ni se ganan ni se pierden, a no ser que se realicen en el congreso, en cuyo caso nadie gana y pierde la sociedad y el buen gusto, las ideas y opiniones de Dawkins y Gould son tan validas como erradas en tanto que muchas no pueden demostrarse empíricamente: faltan aún fósiles y nuevas investigaciones que arrojen la necesaria luz para aceptar o desechar algunas de estas hipótesis. Sterelny es más cercano a Dawkins y no lo oculta, y en muchos de los ejemplos que comenta la ciencia ha dado la razón a Dawkins en contra de Gould. Pero, en defensa de este último, que murió en 2001, Dawkins ha podido disfrutar de 23 años más de revolucionaria teoría evolutiva.

Y los que le queden.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

See below for my summary of the content. As for the book as a whole, I can say it is reasonably well written, but tough going. Indeed, part of the reason for me writing such a detailed summary was to get to grips with it all properly. I am not, of course, qualified to judge how good the science actually is, still less to plump for one side or the other (though I can say I agree with bits of each of them sometimes, and sometimes fall in the middle).

It's worth noting, for the prospective reader, that it does concentrate far more on the actual points at issue than on the historical/biographical details that might make it more interesting for the layman. In particular, there is very little quotation from either party's prolific and eloquent writings.

I do have a more general point to make about the subject, which might help clarify some of the difficulty: natural history is not a science. Since it is mostly studied by people who call themselves scientists, this needs a little explanation. By 'science' I here mean the study of repeatable phenomena. By this definition, (human) history is not 'science', since historians by definition do not study repeatable things. Needless to say, this does not mean that these things are not true, interesting, or worth studying. By the same token, natural history studies things that are not repeatable, which may still be true, interesting, and worth studying, but aren't necessarily 'science'. Since Gould was a palaeontologist, this may be pertinent.

Part 1: Battle Joined

Chapter 1: A Clash of Perspectives

Dawkins is an ethologist (he studies patterns of behaviour and how these have been adapted by evolution); Gould was a palaeontologist. D is most interested in how evolution affects variations between entities; G was more interested in what they have in common. In particular, G thought the basic structure of an animal evolved all at once and is basically unchanged since then. Moreover, they have deeper philosophical differences: G gave more place to things other than science in finding meaning (while still being an atheist).

Part 2: Dawkins' world

Chapter 2: Genes and Gene Lineages

The fundamental unit of life (according to D) is the 'replicator'. Some would dispute this in favour of the cell, claiming that the replicator came later. These replicators are then the means my which selection can work.

Chapter 3: Gene Selection in a World of Organisms

So what's the relationship between genes and the organisms that carry them? According to D, 'the gene remains the unit of selection', because selection is cumulative, and genes are copied between generations, rather than between the organisms themselves. But surely there are several environmental factors that go into building the next generation of organisms, not just the genes themselves? Yes, but the important thing is that they ensure the next generation is like the previous one, but with variation. But how do we know that genes cause the change? After all, change in genotype and phenotype are correlated, but correlation is not causation. (This is where things get interesting for me, because I've always taken it for granted that there was a causative link). The problem is that there is no 'genetic determinism' or 'a stable and simple relation between a particular gene and the characteristics of the organism it is in'. But D claims this is taking it too far The only important thing is that 'genes have phenotypic power', i.e. some sort of probabilistic effect. The result: 'so far, a stand-off' - no-one has proved anything.

Chapter 4: Extended Phenotypes and Outlaws

D has a vision of an organism's genome 'not as a harmonious whole but as a gene population. The genes in the population will have overlapping interests. But there is conflict as well' - even G would admit that this is compelling, and has truth to it. D seems to be winning at this point, in that selection is on the gene lineages here, not the organisms.

Chapter 5: Selfishness and Selection

Genes acting selfishly can lead to co-operative behaviour, as explained in one of D's most famous books. This is against the claims of 'group selection' wherein a group like a wolf-pack is a 'super-organism'. This is a stronger theory than D will give it credit for! G went down the group selection path as well, though the group in which he was most interested was the whole species.

Chapter 6: Selection and Adaptation

G railed against 'adaptationism'. This is the tendency in biology to see everything as a selective adaptation, and to be easily convinced that this is what a given phenomenon is, even without statistical evidence, when in fact many things are just accidental results of other things. D actually broadly agrees, but disagrees about why. But it seems that there is a great deal more room for research.

Part 3: The View from Harvard

Chapter 7: Local Process, Global Change?

There are two connected views G took as particular targets. Firstly, he reckoned that microevolution - that is, within a species - is contemporaneous with, but not a consequence of, genetic change, and argued against those who assume otherwise (such as D). Secondly (and more importantly) he argued against 'extrapolationism', which is the view (accepted in evolutionary biology since the time of Darwin) that major changes are just aggregations of minor changes.

Chapter 8: Punctuated Equilibrium

In the fossil record, we find that types of fossils which resemble each other closely enough to be labelled a 'species' tend to appear suddenly, hang around for a few million years, and then disappear equally suddenly. G (along with a fellow palaeontologist by the name of Eldredge) argued that those intervals between speciation and extinction are when the species was in a state of ecological 'equilibrium' and these intervals are 'punctuated' by sudden change. D and other critics argue that this is nonsense, because evolution can only take place gradually, and this undermines the whole concept of the common descent of species. In any case, you can't stake too much on the patchy fossil record. But as G would point out, what appears instantaneous geologically may have taken tens of thousands of years in reality. D has little time for the theory, but the weight of the evidence is starting to point G's way.

Chapter 9: Mass Extinction

According to G, mass extinctions, not just small, gradual, localized ones, are a big driver behind evolution.

Chapter 10: Life in the Cambrian

About 543 million years ago, on the cusp of the Cambrian geological age, we find a dramatic increase in the number of observable animal forms, called the Cambrian explosion. On its own, this seems to be a point scored for G, but of course, it might be that there was a great deal of hidden evolution we simply don't have evidence for. G had something else in mind, though. He makes a distinction between 'diversity' and 'disparity'. 'Diversity' is simply a count of the number of species. 'Disparity' denotes the breadth of the differences in physiology between species. G maintained that there is a great deal more diversity now than during the Cambrian, but there is less disparity. But the cladists disagree. Cladists argue that the only way to classify life is by descent. Things are more closely related if they have a more recent common ancestor. This undermines the whole notion of disparity, which is in any case somewhat subjective and difficult to measure. G admitted that more work needed to be done to define it adequately, but tragically was never able to do it himself. (Incidentally, D gets referred to in this chapter as 'a true son of orthodoxy', a title which must suitably infuriate him but is entirely true).

Chapter 11: The Evolutionary Escalator

Although more complex forms of life have tended to emerge over time, G believed that this was only one aspect of the way evolution works, since less complex forms of life continue as well, and are more numerous. In fact, the increase in complexity is only an accident; if you started again with different parameters, it might not happen. D agrees that growth in complexity is not central, preferring the concept of genes continuously adapting, but he adopts a more deterministic stance about its occurrence, arguing that the phenomenon of convergent evolution shows that complexity was always inevitable.

Part 4: The State of Play

This part's title is somewhat misleading, as it does not give the reader any idea of how the fight is panning out within academic biology at the time of writing. This does have the advantage that the edition remains broadly accurate some eight years later.

Chapter 12: A Candle in the Dark?

We move now away from evolutionary biology to more general matters in science, ethics, and philosophy. D tends to view science as a catch-all for explaining everything, whereas G put strict boundaries on it, sometimes with little coherence. Sterelny seems somewhat uncomfortable in this area, and basically confesses to taking D's side of the argument. Although from what I know of G's views, I generally disagree with him, I would rather get them from the horse's mouth.

Chapter 13: Stumps Summary

It certainly does stump summary, as I have been discovering while trying to write this review!

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite the silly title and backcover copy, this is a serious and thoughtful book that sheds light on the bits of evolutionary theory that we don't yet know. The danger with any attempt to present evolutionary theory as incomplete is that you'll be mistaken for a creationist. Sterelny is no creationist, and this is not ammunition for that battle. He merely attempts to summarize the differences in position between Richard Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene") and Stephen J. Gould ("The Panda's Thumb"), two prominent evolutionary theorists.

There are differences in emphasis (Dawkins feels adaptation to environment is what evolution must explain and so focuses on natural selection; Gould feels evolution's biggest question is why animal lineages change so little over time and so he focuses on variation more than natural selection) and outright different conjectures (can selection happen for a species as a whole or does it only happen for individuals). The most direct opposition is over "extrapolationism"--can you look at changes we see in our lifetimes and then extract to the many billions of years that life has been on our planet, through mass extinctions and ice ages and ... ?

I've realized that "evolution" isn't a complete theory by any manner of means (though because each individual hypothesis is falsifiable, it's still preferable to religious explanations) and that there are many interesting areas in which new work is being done.

The book isn't an easy read, although it's by no manner of means difficult. I had to keep flicking back to remind myself what a "gene lineage" was, what "progressive evolution" means, and so on. Sterelny does a very good job of explaining the commonalities in the men's thinking, and then going into useful detail with meaningful examples to highlight their differences. You don't need a background in biology to read this book.

[Tom Griffith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sterelny tries to distill the arguments of two great evoluntionary theorists down into 140 short pages, and then tries to explain where the two diverge. He doesn't really succeed in either case: you leave the book thinking, yeah, sure, Gould and Dawkins disagreed...but on what?

[Makomai · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il libro descrive le divergenze tra Dawkins e Gould relativamente ai meccanismi dell’evoluzione e della selezione (i cui principi entrambi accettano). E’ destinato quindi solo a chi abbia letto entrambi gli Autori. Peraltro, chi abbia letto entrambi una sua idea certamente se l’e’ fatta, ed allora ci si potrebbe domandare dove sia l’utilita’ di un testo essenzialmente compilativo. In effetti, l’intento sincretista dello studio lo rende non del tutto superfluo, ma presenta a mio avviso una leggerezza ed un rischio: la leggerezza consiste nel non avvedersi del diverso peso specifico delle singole tesi, se armonizzate nei limiti del possibile: mentre Dawkins – anche in una lettura sincretica – ha apportato innovazioni sostanziali, Gould - se lo si vuole leggere in maniera piu’ o meno compatibile con il mainstream biologico-evoluzionista – perde gran parte del suo rilievo autonomo (mentre se letto in una visione piu’ radicale e significativa non convince proprio…). Il sincretismo di Sterelny ridimensiona Gould, ma non ridimensiona di conseguenza – come dovrebbe - la portata delle sue innovazioni interpretative. Il rischio consiste nel fatto che Gould aveva – ed ha – una notevole diffusione esterna al circuito degli addetti ai lavori, e tali lettori meno smaliziati sono naturalmente portati a credere nell’autoasserito carattere rivoluzionario delle tesi gouldiane e di conseguenza ad interpretarle letteralmente-estensivamente. In tale contesto, le tesi di Gould rischiano di ingenerare visioni completamente falsate dell’evoluzione. Io stesso ho sentito persone che avevano letto Gould sostenere che l’evoluzione procede per grandi balzi in avanti (confondendo Darwin con Mao)… Resta da domandarsi perche’ Gould abbia avuto una diffusione presso i profani maggiore di quella di Dawkins: cinicamente ritengo sia per la sua impostazione piuttosto “ruffiana” dei magisteri separati (non-overlapping) di scienza e religione. Dawkins e’ notoriamente molto piu’ estremo, e l’estremismo scientifico vende meno della ruffianeria verso i credenti, i quali certamente preferiscono un’ambiguita’ che li induca a ritenere giustificato credere contemporaneamente nel dio biblico e nell’evoluzionismo, tesi che lo stesso Gould – se messo alle strette – non avrebbe potuto avallare.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this brief but comprehensive overview of the scientific rivalry between Gould and Dawkins in a bookshop in Edinburgh while I was on holiday. As someone who has read a lot of each author's work, I felt Sterelny was fair in the way he characterized their thought. His writing is sometimes clunky, but he explains the scientific material clearly and precisely.

On my Patheos blog Driven To Abstraction I wrote three articles about Sterelny's comparisons of Dawkins and Gould. First he compared their approaches to natural selection , with Dawkins being the "adaptationist" while Gould emphasized the importance of other mechanisms to evolution. The second deals with the different ways they characterize the development of life on Earth , from the gradualism of Dawkins to the more chaotic and contingent picture drawn by Gould. Lastly I talked about how Sterelny described the difference between their attitudes toward science and inquiry in general ; Sterelny claims to be firmly in the camp of Dawkins the "science worshipper"(Sterelny's phrase) while I have much more in common with Gould the postmodernist.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent dissection of the debate between Steven Gould and Richard Dawkins on the meaning and driving forces of evolution. Sterelny (one of the world's great living philosophers of science) knows the work of both men very well. This 2nd edition of 2007 has been updated to include Gould's magnum opus, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", and Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale". He very clearly shows what each believes about evolution, how Sterelny views their ideas, and who "wins" this particular debate and why.
Both Gould and Dawkins are committed Darwinians, but Gould was a paleontologist and Dawkins is an ethologist. One of Gould's main contributions was his Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, but he is probably as well known for his idea of separate magisteria of science and religion. Dawkins ideas were elucidated in "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype", and he is equally well known as one of the world's most outspoken atheists. The differences between them extend far beyond the borders of religious belief, and this book spells those differences out in clear language for the non-scientist. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the history and philosophy of evolution.

[Shafaat · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's a very succinct book on a very cerebral topic: the clash of perspectives between two school of evolutionary biologists. All in all the book can't be said bad, but the lucidity is lost with too much information crammed within too little space. This book should've been thicker, there was too little room for proper explanation. I almost forced myself to read it because I planned to write an article on this topic.

[Sergio Redondo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinante. Me ha encantado. Aunque el autor se posiciona claramente más a favor de Dawkins que de Jay Gould —y lo reconoce al final del último capítulo; esto no es ningún spoiler—, el propio debate surgido a raíz de las posturas de ambos científicos es realmente apasionante. Una lectura muy entretenida, aunque creo que el autor no consigue hacer accesibles ciertos puntos de la discusión al lector común y no versado en estos temas.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 3 out of 5]

the wilde amazone

Focused, succinct summary: nicely done

Published in 2001 this little book does a nice job explaining the fundamental arguments between the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins -- two extraordinary (and influential) contemporary scholars on evolution. Each has their followers. Dawkins emphasizes natural selection's gradually accumulated change leading toward more adaptive organisms; Gould focuses instead on "punctuated equilibrium," long periods of little change periodically goosed by cataclysm, followed by a "weeding out" of the less fit. Gradual change, he says, is canceled out to a large extent, but the fluctuations in the environment. Much of the selection, he says, takes place at the group or species level, rather than the level of gene or worse, the "meme" which has seduced the gullible to think evolution affects behavior. Gould was not one to mince words, apparently.

There is much more of interest in this well crafted booklet. Their actual views have been presented in simplistic form, which only confuses the discussion. Some of their real disagreements had subsided by the time the book was written. Yet there remains several clear divisions not only on the way natural selection works but on science, and religion (which Dawkins despises) and evolutionary psychology (which Gould despised). It's quite an interesting read.

The differences are clearer in this book than I have found elsewhere, and the author seems balanced though admits in the end to being swayed more toward Dawkins.

This probably isn't a book one should pick up before The Selfish Gene and at least some familiarity with the Gould/Dawkins debate. Gould's work is mostly published in journals so somewhat less accessible to the casual reader. Sterelny also provides a very nice point-by-point recap in the final chapter and a useful section that recommends and comments on further readings for every topic.

Tintin
///////

Biologists, red in tooth and claw
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 25, 2008

Given that it covers a particularly vitriolic skirmish between two huge, polarising and consistently outspoken opposing generals in the Science Wars, Kim Sterelny had on his hands a fascinating topic. He quite easily could have crammed this brief volume full of the proverbial sizzling gypsies - gory details of the academic handbags which were exchanged in full view of an admiring dilettante public - but inexplicably, he chose not to.

Instead, the fieriest debate is reduced to its desiccated intellectual premises and is presented worthily and dryly. This is, no doubt, second nature to a professional scientist like Sterelny, but it displays a lack of worldliness for an aspiring popular author; a worldliness, ironically enough, possessed in oodles by both of his subjects.

Unlike your usual zoologist (though granted, I don't know that many), Richard Dawkins invites extremes of adoration or vitriol from just about anyone who's heard of him (and, given his gift for self publicity, that's most people);

The late Steve Gould was (on this side of the ditch at any rate) of less general reknown but equally susceptible, in the right circles, to excitable opinion.

Olly Buxton

[Raymond Lam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a useful clearly written little book that compares the two famous but very different evolutionary theorists,  Dawkins and Gould.  The first part of the book is a summary of Dawkins while the second part is on Gould.  The author does not only point out their differences but also show their occasional agreement or at least compatible points.

Author highlights the gene replication and genetic  lineage based view of Dawkins approach according to which selection is on the gene level though it makes living organism or groups of it to be its vehicle. Dawkins still thinks the gene replication selection pressure is the driving force, and reaches to extended phenotype in the environment of the organisms.

In contrast, Gould does not hold selection at the gene level but at organism and higher level, such as population of groups of organism. It reacts to selection pressure at the local level for adaptive advantages. Gould rejects gradualism in extrapolationism which suggests organisms adaptive changes is over small adaptations over a long history of time to ptoduce changes. The fossil records don't support that. That is why he proposes puntuated equilibrium according to which organisms are in long period of stasis (equilibrium), and make changes (punctuated) over a short period of geological time. Gradualism does not explain mass extinction and speciation caused by climate, environmental, and geological changes.  Gould also accepts not all micro or macro evolutionary  activities having to do with selection. There are other features of an organisms that can change but have nothing to do with local adaptations, such as peacock feather for mate attraction.

Author also highlights places Dawkins and Gould can have agreement such as both agree the vehicles of selection can be at the organism level and group level though for different reasons. Gould also believes that evolutionary progress is characterised by complexity thru proliferation in diversity. There is a change from the most simple to the more complex organisms. Dawkins in contrast thinks evolutionary progress is thru adaptation. Over time an organism is more adapted to its niche. So its configuration becomes more adapted to its environment, not more complex.

This book is a usual work that captures the highlights of both Gould and Dawkins, and is most useful for someone who read the main works from both evolutionary theorists.

[Dave Clarke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Only became aware there was a controversy in one of the essays in a recent Dawkins read - 'A devil's chaplin' ... though dawkins was extremely gracious in his criticism of Gould, to the point that i'm now reading Gould's series of books based on his column in Natural history ... so, it was an easy decision to buy a bundle of books that included this one, to sate my curiosity over what in fact the argument was about, as both are or were devoted scientists ... this book therefore looks to try and make sense of their differences, made more complicated that as science progressed, new facts are discovered that change the paradigms that many of their differences were based on, so the amicable tome of the essays i read in 'A Devils Chaplin' had been made so by a coming together of their ideas, not a growing apart ... advances in genetics have helped show that many of their issues arose from describing the same issues from differing viewpoints, like a room full of blind men describing a giraffe, all are correct, but often fail to realize they are all describing different as[pects of the same beast ... dawkins pushes the replicating gene as a driver of evolution over a geological scale, whilst Gould concentrates on the extinction boundaries as drivers of change, but suggesting body shapes and types are more fixed, and have been since the Cambrian explosion ... whilst also stating that evolutionary science cannot or should not try to answer questions of human behaviour and that religion as a construct should stand alone from science; something that Dawkins has never came to terms with, arguing instead that cultural memes act like genes, but also that there is a evolutionary explanation for behaviours ... fascinating stuff, if you like that sort of thing

[Ruward · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book summarizes and explains wonderfully various debates about the nature of evolution, which was most prominently fought between Eldredge Lewiston and Gould on the one hand and Dawkins, Dennett, Ridley, on the other. At stake is the extent to which gradual adaptations drive evolution, or whether mass extinctions mostly determine selection of species; the question if individual organisms and groups are them are genuinely new, nonreductive entities or merely 'vehicles', as Dawkins puts it, of war-waging gene lineages; and not least: the extent to which neo-Darwinian explanations are the only explanations allowed in biology, i.e. What is the goal of science?

I've been reading much philosophy of biology over the years, but I've never learned so much about this topic in so few pages - about both the scientific details and the philosophical back-and-forth. I am genuinely amazed by the clarity and brevity of Sterelny's writing without haggling nuance.

[Luca Baldini · Rating 4 out of 5]

In questo testo Kim Sterelny presenta l'acceso dibattito tra Richard Dawkins e Stephen J. Gould su alcune questioni della teoria evolutiva. L'autore presenta le tesi di entrambi i "contendenti", le contestualizza e ci accompagna nella loro analisi. Non risparmia anche qualche commento e presa di posizione personale.
Il testo è molto utile, oserei dire fondamentale, per chi vuole avvicinarsi alla letteratura evolutiva degli ultimi decenni e in particolare dei due autori le cui tesi sono qui presentate.
Ricco di utili esempi e interessanti immagini, non è però sempre chiarissimo nei passaggi e nelle scelte di approfondimento di certi temi.
Al termine presenta una magistrale serie di consigli di lettura per ogni specifico argomento trattato.
Da leggere per chi si interessa del tema, certamente non però per chi non ha qualche base sull'evoluzionismo darwiniano e i suoi risvolti moderni.

[Luke Illeniram · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Don't judge a book by its cover" has never been more apt. Moving on from the terribly kitsch cover, Sterelny does an admirable job tackling the task of summarising Dawkins and Gould. I'm only familiar with Dawkins work, and couldn't help but feeling I was still somewhat confused at some of Gould's points and how they differed to Dawkins. It is quite a hard read sometimes, as the language can quickly become confusing when it delves deep into the specifics of their views. Dawkins' views seemed far more clear, but I suspect that is due to my prior knowledge. I may have to read more Gould to really get the most out of this book. Extra points for the numerous Australian references too Kim!

[Ron Welch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fine review of the state of evolutionary theory as exemplified by the different views of SJ Gould and R Dawkins about subjects such as whether genes or organisms are the focus of evolution, whether the possible range of body plans are relatively restricted, and the role of mass extinctions in history.

They also share very different views about the limits (or lack thereof) of science in illuminating moral questions for humans.

The discussion is rather technical at times, but full of interesting examples of how life adapts and evolves.

[Alessandro Veneri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Utile e concisa panoramica non-tecnica sulle maggiori controversie interne alla teoria evoluzionista, aggiornato anni 2002/2003. Sterleny – professore di filosofia in Nuova Zelanda e direttore della rivista Philosophy and Biology – disamina la diatriba intellettuale tra l’evoluzionismo proposto da Dawkins e quello di Gould, privilegiando i punti di accordo anziché le divergenze teoriche. Da leggere in un pomeriggio come introduzione a due dei maggiori autori e divulgatori del neodarwinismo.

[Nolan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice, little monograph that gives an overview to some of the views, disagreements and methodological differences between two of the late 20th century's most influential evolutionary biologists. Would have liked if Dr. Sterelny had done a more thorough job contextualizing both scientists' backgrounds and impact in the field of biology. But as far as secondary literature for morons like me it served its purpose well.

[Tomasz · Rating 1 out of 5]

Short (too short), chaotic, poorly structured. The author fails to describes clearly his points, jumping from topic to topic. Many differences between the author are left unnoticed. The summary is full of oversimplified or silly statements (e.g. accusing Gould of soft postmodernism). Not recommended

[CCBaxter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Exposición de las diferencias entre Dawkins y Gould. Se extiende más en las diferencias acerca de la teoría de la evolución (no en ella, en la que están de acuerdo, si no en algunos mecanismos que resultan algo duros para los no profesionales) que en las existentes acerca de la consideración de la ciencia como única forma de entender el mundo.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a useful introduction into the world of evolutionary theory for me. I don't have much knowledge about any of what was said in the book so I can't think critically about it, but I do think this is a worthwhile book and I bought a copy of The Structure of Evolutionary Theory because of it. This might be going from the bunny hill straight to death mountain though.

[Gabor Hernadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

The short and readable summary of the long public spat of Gould and Dawkins. It`s very interesting to see how two great scientist can reach very different conclusions form the same facts and principles the same time not questioning those principles and the science of evolution itself.

[SR · Rating 5 out of 5]

It wouldn't be possible to read this book without some prior introduction to the debate it dealt with. Especially, reading Dawkins or Gould, or , preferably both makes the reading of it easy and engaging.

[Yash Arya · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of the views of two of the most prominent Evolutionary Biologists in recent times, where they agreed, and where they vehemently disagreed.

[Stoffia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cet essai tente de se servir des figures de Richard Dawkins et de Stephen Jay Gould pour résumer les débats qui ont lieu au sein des milieux académiques, à propos de la théorie de l'évolution.

On nous présente donc deux écoles de pensée.

A- Chez Dawkins, l'évolution est un phénomène qui prend place au cours de millions d'années. Les changements sont infiniment minuscules et s'accumulent au fil des générations. Cette approche est facile à comprendre parce que plutôt intuitive : les représentants d'une espèce qui réussissent à se reproduire sont nécessairement ceux qui 1) ont réussi à survivre et 2) ont réussi à copuler. Après chaque génération donc, les plus aptes se reproduisent, et seuls les plus aptes parmi ceux-là réussiront eux aussi, et ainsi de suite.

Le succès de cette approche (qui est celle que j'ai appris à l'école) tient entre autres du fait que c'est la plus facile à comprendre pour les plus jeunes. Mais aussi que c'est la plus facile à programmer dans un logiciel informatique, pour faire des émulations, tester des hypothèses et tout cela. C'est une théorie très rationaliste.

Ce qui est d'ailleurs son principal défaut. Parce que si cette théorie était vraie, nous devrions trouver des fossiles de chimères : d'une espèce à mi-chemin dans son développement d'une espèce vers une autre. Au sein d'une même espèce, l'on serait capable de suivre l'émergence de traits sur de très longues périodes.

Mais ce n'est pas le cas.

B- On arrive donc à l'approche de Stephen Jay Gould, qui est plutôt empirique. Selon cette théorie, l'évolution ne se ferait pas graduellement mais bien par bonds. Elle se produirait en l'espace de quelques générations lors d'événements exceptionnels qui menacent la survie d'une espèce. L'évolution se démarquerait donc en fait par de longues périodes de stabilité.

Imaginons donc une espèce parfaitement adaptée à son climat. Puis survient un changement dramatique : une sécheresse, une inondation, une épidémie, etc. Les chances sont fortes que les représentants de l'espèce qui survivront et se reproduiront sont ceux qui n'étaient pas les plus aptes avant la catastrophe. Ceux qui divergent de leur espèce et qui soit 1- n'auraient pas survécu en temps normal, ou 2- n'auraient pas été capable de se reproduire.

Ces représentants divergents se reproduisent donc désormais et, en l'espèce de quelques générations, nous voilà avec une nouvelle espèce, et une espèce éteinte.

Cela expliquerait aussi l'absence de chimères ou d'espèces médianes dans nos échantillons fossiles.

[Mark Oconnor · Rating 2 out of 5]

I started reading this a few days ago and am on page 43. I am simultaneously reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins and have read many of Gould's books over the years. Other than agreeing with a previous readers comment about the incorrect use of "diploid" on page 47, my general impression is that Sterelny uses hackneyed and banal examples for explaining basic, ground level biology (who is his audience? If they already know who Dawkins and Gould are why would they require grade-school level hand-holding?). In addition to the already mentioned error about sex determinism in hymenoptera, he even manages to contradict both Dawkins AND Gould, specifically stating that Dawkins claims there is a specific gene for creating the eye (which he clearly denies in his 30th anniversary edition of "The Selfish Gene", incidentally referring to the same accusation in a Gould article entitled "Caring Groups and Selfish Genes" from his book "The Panda's Thumb"). He similarly misrepresents Gould, first repeating Robert Wright's orotund and portentous attacks on Gould's politics (which he addressed in several editorials already), and then stating that "your liver cells are very different from your neurons in both their structure and their function" (golf clap). The very notion of the phrase "gene expression" is utterly defeated here in a resounding note of irony. He then boorishly and hilariously reaches the conclusion that no gene makes a trait, and "few genes are invariably connected with a specific trait". Huh? Try telling that to the Swiss scientist Walter Gehring who in the 1990s inserted the master control gene called "eyeless" from a fruit fly into a mouse, which then produced a normal mouse eye. And I haven't even addressed the poor organization of the material in general which resembles the results of a last minute, desperate Red Bull and Vodka all-nighter constructed by an ADHD college freshman for a BIO101 term paper. Sterelny needs to stop cribbing other author's material or at least have the decency to get their arguments right. Simply a mess.

[Icon Books · Rating 5 out of 5]

Slim and readable ... the aficionado of evolutionary theory and the intense debate it engenders would do well to read Dawkins vs. Gould.' Nature, on the first edition

An international bestseller when originally published, this brand-new and completely revised edition updates the story of one of science's most vigorous arguments.

Science has seen its fair share of punch-ups over the years, but one debate, in the field of biology, has become notorious for its intensity. Over the last twenty years, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould have engaged in a savage battle over evolution, which continues to rage even after Gould's death in 2002.

Kim Sterelny moves beyond caricature to expose the real differences between the conceptions of evolution of these two leading scientists. He shows that the conflict extends beyond evolution to their very beliefs in science itself; and, in Gould's case, to domains in which science plays no role at all.

--------------

‘Book of the month’ Focus

‘Slim and readable … the aficionado of evolutionary theory and the intense debate it engenders would do well to read it’ Nature

‘A deft little book … its insights are both useful and fun’ The Australian

‘A useful and highly readable introduction to some potentially confusing debates in modern biology.’ The British Society for the History of Science

[Deniz Cem Önduygu · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had low expectations for this book because of its (typographically) cheesy cover design and clumsy typesetting. In the end it made me want to read his other books.

Sterelny uses the debate between Dawkins and Gould to walk through many important topics in evolutionary biology, mentioning lots of other scientists and philosophers on the way, and successfully switching between detailed examples and the big picture. His writing is so clear and concise that it somehow resonates with the in-your-face 12-point Times New Roman it's set with. The book ends with an amazing Suggested Reading part where Sterelny makes useful comments on every book he suggests – ideal for Goodreads people who like to use their to-read shelves.

In any case, Kim, if you're reading this: change your publisher. Your book deserves better design.

And this is something I did (based on the original) reflecting where I stand on the debate.

[Dinesh Viruvanti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kim Sterelny's 'Dawkins vs. Gould' is a summary of the key debates that took place between Dawkins 'Team' and Stephen Jay Gould's 'Team' on various aspects of evolutionary theory. This book can is a rapid review on the works of the evolutionary biologists mentioned in the title. A reader who is familiar with works of Gould and Dawkins can read through this book over 2 or 3 days. The concise nature of this book nevertheless comes with a price : omission of some important ideas. For example, Exaptations and Spandrels are important contributions of Stephen Jay Gould to the evolutionary theory which are not handled in this book. While dealing with 'Constraints', the author totally left out Gould's 'Constraint as a positive concept'. I think these are major omissions. Otherwise, reading this book is quite enjoyable (even the 'suggested reading' at its end).

[Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

SJG approaches the questions thrown open by evolution as a biologist: His primary response is to observe and categorise. SJG does seek explanations, but they come late in the game and are guided first by observations, not abstract reason.

RD's approach is much closer to physics. RD has full confidence that at the some low enough level of reductionism a handful of simple meta-laws can account for the astounding range of natural phenomena.

The modern theory of evolution owes equally to both viewpoints, but their integration remains a work in progress. Undoubtedly the condescension/envy with which physicists and biologists regard each other plays a role in the nature of the exchange, as does the combatative and general touchiness of the protagonists.