Rating: 
Summary: A revolutionary and humbling assertion
Review: There may be redundancy in this book, as noted by others, but that hardly matters when you consider what Mr. Gould is suggesting. I think his thesis is as revolutionary as that of Copernicus. Just as Copernicus and Galileo debunked our species' self-important belief that Earth was the center of the universe, Mr. Gould argues that we have no basis for thinking that we are the peak of evolution. We're just a chance variant from the bacterial norm. Not an apex, simply a deviation. If he is correct, mankind must once again reevaluate its place in the universe. To me, this is an icon-shattering work of widespread importance, explained using the fascinating mystery of the extinct .400 hitter.
Rating:
Summary: Natural selection is not a synonym of progress
Review: This book is a forceful illustration of some basic theorems presented by G.C. Williams in his book 'Adaptation and Natural selection': 'there is nothing in the basic structure of the theory of natural selection that would suggest the idea of any kind of cumulative progress' and 'Evolution was a by-product of the maintenance of adaptation'.Gould corroborates these theorems by showing that the main modus of life on this planet is and has always been 'bacterial'. He explains clearly that the second law of thermodynamics is only valid for closed systems, not for the earth.
He stresses also that cultural changes are fundamentally different from Darwinian evolutions. The former are Lamarckian, the latter are forced by the less efficient process of natural selection.
But Gould warns rightly that the enormous technological revolutions are not necessarily cultural or moral improvements because of the real risk of, e.g., environmental poisoning or a nuclear catastrophe. One needs a basic knowledge of statistics to fully understand the book. In his vigorous and persuasive style, S.J. Gould puts some good-looking scientific and moral ideas into a coffin.
Not to be missed.
Rating: 
Summary: Major-league ego, Mr Gould?
Review: This book might be interesting reading, if it were not for the
fact that the reader is left in no doubt that Gould has an extremely
high opinion of himself; to an extent that is irritating to say
the least. A representative example from page 106-107: "...Several
years later I redid the study... (3 weeks at the computer for
my research assistant...)... . ...pardon a bit of crowing, but
I was stunned and delighted by the elegance and clarity of this result."
Note that the learned Prof. Gould has the same attitude to
his "research assistant" as to any other tool in his work, something
to be used and that shall remain nameless, despite the "elegance and clarity of HIS result".
Most of Gould's previous books have been collections of short essays.
I hope he returns to that format on his next efforts. Such a monumental
ego is digestible only in small doses...
Rating: 
Summary: Not his best, but worth a look
Review: This is a book full of colourful ideas and well-considered deductions that often gets lost in the details. The book's main problem is stylistic-- it would appear that it has not undergone the revisions and editing that are necessary for a book on the mass market. Its redundancy sometimes makes it a thicket to read (eg. see Chapter 3). It is too self-referential, self-congratulatory, and it pats itself on the back too much at times. And the digression into baseball and the decline of the .400 hitter is occasionally entertaining but is an obvious statement of statistics, and does not merit the pages that are devoted to it. Still, the crux of this book is sound, and the reasoning is interesting. Gould revisits some of the ground that he'd examined in his earlier work with paleontology, the Burgess Shale of "Wonderful Life," the intriguing ruminations on the fossil record. Gould's thesis is that progress, at least in the sense of complexity, is due more to a statistical random walk than a pre-planned template that was inevitably bringing it about. This point is subtle, and it is crucial to realize that he is not making some kind of value judgement here. Some of the reviews below confuse the thesis-- Gould is not "knocking humanity off its pedestal" or attacking anthropocentric arguments, or showing that bacteria are somehow superior (though his at-length examination of their features is quite fascinating). He is, furthermore, not questioning the notion of progress, or denying the increase in complexity. What he's saying is simply that, beginning from a state of minimal complexity (bacteria), a number of random events will take place, some of which will indeed generate higher complexity, some of which won't. Natural selection does not necessarily demand higher complexity, rather, it merely demands a better fit to a local niche. Thus it is not essential that life in general become more complex, but some lineages certainly will, and since there is no apparent "maximal complexity" (comparable to the minimal limit at bacteria), those trendlines will be astonishing in their extent and capability. Thus the lineages that produce that progress will naturally attract greater interest by evolutionists, and while this is a trend, it is not an exclusive one. That's all. Higher animals will tend to be more complex, and he's not saying this makes them superior, nor does he claim that they are self-deceiving or inferior in some deeper sense; he is simply pointing out that the mechanisms for generating higher complexity, which he acknowledges shows a trendline, are different, more unpredictable, more uncertain, and more variable than are often surmised. When the book avoids the verbal tangles that make it difficult in places, it's truly a joy to read. Just skim to get the general gist on which the thesis centres itself and come back to some of the more involved sections when you have more time to delve more deeply into the subtleties of the argument. It is, for all its flaws, an enjoyable collection of ideas from a proven author.
Rating:
Summary: An arrogant denunciation of "human arrogance."
Review: This is a rather puzzling book whose goal appears to be an attack on religious interpretations of evolution, interpretations which see God as the creator of the material and processes whose evolution results in human beings. Such a view, says Gould, is merely an expression of "human arrogance." Evolution doesn't work that way, and "[h]umans are here by the luck of the draw...." "[T]he vast majority of replays would never produce . . . a creature with self-consciousness." (But the universe is big--couldn't even a small minority of "replays" which produce self-consciousness, and we know that there has been at least one such event, be interpreted as a statistically inevitable expression of divine intent?) Does Gould participate in the "human arrogance" he sneers at? If so, perhaps his reasoning is less than impeccable. If he believes that he is _not_ arrogant, on the other hand, isn't that arrogant of him?À %
Rating:
Summary: No need to have written this one
Review: While I'm usually a big fan of Gould (being a statistician with left-wing tendencies who believes the preponderance of evidence for plain-vanilla evolution is overwhelming), much of this book was pointless to publish.
The points of his arguments on the decline of the .400 hitter are obviously true (So obvious that I knew them as a 12 year old - too bad I didn't publish!), but they hardly prove his premise. His points about statistical distributions are obvious as well. While it's fine to bring them up in context (e.g. Mortality rates of a population vs. that of an individual), he shouldn't pretend he's discovered something "deep" in statistics. I understand that he's gained popularity by association with baseball, but he should stick to his subject a little more.
In fairness, I'd give the book 2.5 stars if I could.
|
