Transcript Stephen Jay Gould On the Origin of Specious Critics

Stephen Jay Gould
On the Origin of Specious Critics
About Gould






Doctorate in 1967 in paleontology at
Columbia University
Teamed with biologist Biles Eldredge and
announced their evolutionary idea in
1972—argued evolution moves in abrupt
fits and sits with long periods of no
changes in species
Taught geology and biology at Harvard
Diagnosed with an incurable cancer in July
1982
1998 – visited Stanford University
Died May 20, 2002 from cancer
Genre & Rhetoric



Critique of Rifkin’s Algeny book
Published in Discover magazine
Rhetorical analysis & refutation
of Rifkin’s work
Audience



Readers interested in new
technologies concerning our
species—medicine and related
Educated – should understand
the English language well
enough to understand Gould’s
critique
Those favoring bioengineering
Argument


Question: What are the
consequences of altering life’s
fundamental geometry and
permitting one species to design new
creatures at will, combining bits and
pieces of lineages distinct for billions
of years?
Critique: “I regard Algeny as a
cleverly constructed tract of antiintellectual propaganda
masquerading as scholarship.”
Structure



Clear point of view and outline for
essay
Provides overview of Algeny
Critique of Algeny presented on five
fronts





Does not understand Darwinism
Little comprehension of what science is
or how scientists work
Unfair argument
Ignores fair scholarship
Full of ludicrous, simple errors
Style





Harsh and straightforward
Attempts to educate the reader
(definitions)
References Rifkin’s points, then
refutes or shows why they are
inappropriate
Sentences varied
Addresses Rifkin by first name;
reads sometimes as though Gould is
speaking to Rifkin directly
Questions



How effective is Gould’s critique
given his directness? Does it come
off as too strong, or is it appropriate?
Is Gould fair in his treatment of
Rifkin’s remarks?
Comparing Rifkin with Gould, it
would appear Gould has more
expertise on this topic. Does this
make his critique more convincing or
credible?
What effect does referencing Rifkin
directly have on the essay?