@@decimustv4257 it's kinda mixed. punctuated equilibrium is just not the majority of cases, and his approach to levels of analysis in evolution I'd consider kinda correct. everything ultimately is just gene, but the physical bodies ect introduce some nuance
@@decimustv4257In what respect, to what degree, and according to whom? It's unthinkable that he was wrong about everything, and it's similarly unthinkable that he somehow managed to be right about it all either. Gould was and remains a respected voice of his generation, influential in many respects but ultimately superceded like all scientists eventually are. Without greater specificity, your claim that he was wrong means nearly nothing.
I'm reading The Mismeasure of Man, I found this video because I was looking for a face and a voice to match the words, I like to visualize the author talking to me when I read. For some reason, I feel even more value doing that when the author has passed away, it's like he's revived for a moment in my mind while I read the products of his mind. Very sad that he passed, he seemed like a wonderfully compassionate man. RIP.
I read almost everyone of Gould's books and unfortunately have since learned that they are littered with many inaccurate facts and representation, especially the mismeasure of man
@@GilesMcRiker When you say you learned of these misrepresentations, what were your sources? I'd be interested to read criticism of his work, provided it's well-researched/reputable.
@@GilesMcRiker I have some extreme doubts that you’ve ever read a single book by Gould cover to cover, much less every single one. I doubt you’ve even read a single academic publication of his. Further I doubt if I were to meet you in person you would even be able name three titles he’s published off the top of your head. Your comment is bleeding with insincerity. You’re a bad liar.
I didn't read it. A lot of people disagree with Dawkins on it. DNA is an innert substance. Without the machinery of the cell it couldn't replicate. And even if it did replicate, it would produce goo that wasn't about anything. The only reason it is about anything is because it is a part of a cell that offloaded its constraints onto it. For him to focus all the attention on a "replicator" and yet com deny any role to the actual living organism that actually does all the work of spontaneously staying away from thermodynamic equilibrium is nothing but a trick. What needs to be explained is how chemistry became alive. What needs to be explained is how evolution came into existence. None of these are explained by the idea that a replicator simply starts a runaway reaction - firstly because once a runaway reaction burns through all its material, it is done. There's nothing else for it to do. A lot of chemical reactions are like that, and they are not alive.
@I Insult the prophet Gould may have been wrong in some of his conclusions but treating him like this as he did those mistakes on purpose is mind numbing. Leave the politics out of this, you sound ridiculous.
@I Insult the prophet You suppose to much for your little brain. Go through your Marxism meme elsewhere and spit on it so it might stick. You don't even know where to use it, let alone to understand what is is. Put some grey into your black and white world, and stop pretending you're able to understand colors.
Gould, Steven Jay: (1941-2002) Distinguished ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and man of letters. Gould believed that natural science ultimately was informed by multiple or 'plural' empirical traditions, and that accident and contingency has a much a hand in making us what we are than a monomaniacal reliance on the metaphors of natural selection. Sensible stuff of course unless you have a lucrative 'revolution' to run. Thus Gould was excoriated, excommunicated, and in their dreams burned alive by Darwinian fundamentalists such as Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Tooby-Cosmides who felt at least that they had true religion if not truly good writing skills. From Dr. Mezmer’s World of Bad Psychology, at an internet near you!
shim erian If he had conformed to an ordinary, mundane, humdrum haircut, perhaps it would, like Samson, have reduced him to an ordinary, mundane, humdrum mind. Maybe his genius was sourced from his elaborate coif.
What are his sources and which book are they talking about at [5:36] claiming that columbus had an argument with the people of his time about the circumference of the world, and on the other hand had no argument with the church about the world being flat or round. And if so, what is the source about the "Columbus egg" where he broke it and stood it on its "head"? It is true that Abraham ibn Zaccuto had fixed the 24,000 mile number of Eratosthenes to 15,000 claiming the 24 number was Roman miles larger than the ones in his time. The Hebrew translation of Maimonides on the Mishna by Shlomo Ibn Tibon has the number correctly copied in numbers and words)
15:00 - I hear what he's saying about the ubiquity of dinosaurs. There's a book series I thoroughly enjoyed reading, about a wizard named Harry Dresden who practices openly in Chicago. It's a fabulous series and I highly recommend it. Anyway, I've often thought that a wonderful movie franchise could be built around the series. But once I thought more carefully about that, I realized that they would spoil it, by failing to pursue the story from beginning to end. What they'd do is pick the book they thought would make the most commercially successful movie, without regard for where it sat in the series. And I'm 100% certain that would be book #7, which is called Dead Beat. The reason is because it contains a dinosaur. Hollywood would simply be unable to resist, and they'd go for that, at the expense of the overall integrity of the movie series. I don't think there's ANY CHANCE they would opt otherwise. Once I thought that through I stopped wanting Harry Dresden movies.
I was watching *A Glorious Accident (6 of 7) Stephen Jay Gould: The Unanswerable* , where *Stephen Gould* says at 46:00 it would be Unethical - ( Amoral- WRONG ) - for humans and chimps to interbreed. Might that be because Gould has an inner conscious that tells him that? My point is WHY? Since Gould is such a hard core scientist (and 100% non-theist) , why would the thought of humans and chimps interbreeding be so distasteful to him? After all, Gould does not see humans as being any better than chimps, so why would Stephen Gould say that such is "unethical"?? It would be _"scientifically interesting"_ , would it not, at least from a scientific point of view.
OK I'm answering as a Jew for a fellow Jew who is now dead, and speaking on his behalf hoping I didn't get it wrong. Many atheist Jews do see the importance of culture, of society and of self preservence. Jay was from a Marxist family, believing that people should be good to each other and cooperative with each other, accepting that culture is important to society (as he says in another lecture about him not understanding Christian texts in the original Latin: I'm a good New York Jew) as long as it does not deny the evidential record and the concluded truth. That outlook is generally described as the Ethical Culture Movement, usually traced back to Felix Adler. Many of the Jewish scientists also "believe" or at least "invest" in the value of intelligence itself and its continuation. This is following Maimonides' understanding of the Greek philosophers as recorded (differently) by Plato or Aristotle, and further advanced by Benedict Spinoza in the middle ages and in our days by Leo Straus. Notice minute [24:25] where he says that he despises misuse of innacurate non-scientific descriptions such as genetic determinism for curtain social purposes which he also despises. Breeding with Chimpanzess would be taking advantage of Chimpanzees against their will, with one of the parents unable to relate to their children the way they would with other children, and there would be no environment for such a child to grow up in. And would be creating offspring that would most probably be missing part of the human intelligence (see above). Last but not least it would be going against the culture of his time, and as his hairstyle, suit, shirt, and tie indicate, he was not an anarchist.
It does not take much to understand it’s unethical. There’s no need to project a silly post-modern, relativistic strawman over this topic or to imply the Dostoyevskian ‘anything is permitted’ trope. It’s just plain stupid and absurd.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
He left us too soon. People like him should live at least 100 years!
You do realise he was badly wrong about evolution.
@@decimustv4257 it's kinda mixed. punctuated equilibrium is just not the majority of cases, and his approach to levels of analysis in evolution I'd consider kinda correct. everything ultimately is just gene, but the physical bodies ect introduce some nuance
@@decimustv4257In what respect, to what degree, and according to whom? It's unthinkable that he was wrong about everything, and it's similarly unthinkable that he somehow managed to be right about it all either. Gould was and remains a respected voice of his generation, influential in many respects but ultimately superceded like all scientists eventually are. Without greater specificity, your claim that he was wrong means nearly nothing.
I'm reading The Mismeasure of Man, I found this video because I was looking for a face and a voice to match the words, I like to visualize the author talking to me when I read. For some reason, I feel even more value doing that when the author has passed away, it's like he's revived for a moment in my mind while I read the products of his mind. Very sad that he passed, he seemed like a wonderfully compassionate man. RIP.
I read almost everyone of Gould's books and unfortunately have since learned that they are littered with many inaccurate facts and representation, especially the mismeasure of man
@@GilesMcRiker When you say you learned of these misrepresentations, what were your sources? I'd be interested to read criticism of his work, provided it's well-researched/reputable.
@@GilesMcRiker bullshit
He was a great man, one of the best
@@GilesMcRiker I have some extreme doubts that you’ve ever read a single book by Gould cover to cover, much less every single one. I doubt you’ve even read a single academic publication of his. Further I doubt if I were to meet you in person you would even be able name three titles he’s published off the top of your head. Your comment is bleeding with insincerity. You’re a bad liar.
A dear friend posted a quote by Gould and a smile and memory of this man came flooding back. Here I am returning to the Gould rabbit hole. 😊
My dad was the producer for this show when o was growing up James Pease he was a good man.
I've just started reading a book called 'Dawkins vs. Gould'; anyone read it?
Gould disagreed with Dawkins' gene-centric view of evolution.
I didn't read it. A lot of people disagree with Dawkins on it. DNA is an innert substance. Without the machinery of the cell it couldn't replicate. And even if it did replicate, it would produce goo that wasn't about anything. The only reason it is about anything is because it is a part of a cell that offloaded its constraints onto it. For him to focus all the attention on a "replicator" and yet com deny any role to the actual living organism that actually does all the work of spontaneously staying away from thermodynamic equilibrium is nothing but a trick. What needs to be explained is how chemistry became alive. What needs to be explained is how evolution came into existence. None of these are explained by the idea that a replicator simply starts a runaway reaction - firstly because once a runaway reaction burns through all its material, it is done. There's nothing else for it to do. A lot of chemical reactions are like that, and they are not alive.
Stanislav Mudrets you’re just referencing a self-replicator, which is in fact RNA.
@I Insult the prophet Gould may have been wrong in some of his conclusions but treating him like this as he did those mistakes on purpose is mind numbing. Leave the politics out of this, you sound ridiculous.
@I Insult the prophet You suppose to much for your little brain. Go through your Marxism meme elsewhere and spit on it so it might stick. You don't even know where to use it, let alone to understand what is is. Put some grey into your black and white world, and stop pretending you're able to understand colors.
@I Insult the prophet nope, still you by a wide margin.
Gould, Steven Jay: (1941-2002) Distinguished ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and man of letters. Gould believed that natural science ultimately was informed by multiple or 'plural' empirical traditions, and that accident and contingency has a much a hand in making us what we are than a monomaniacal reliance on the metaphors of natural selection. Sensible stuff of course unless you have a lucrative 'revolution' to run. Thus Gould was excoriated, excommunicated, and in their dreams burned alive by Darwinian fundamentalists such as Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Tooby-Cosmides who felt at least that they had true religion if not truly good writing skills.
From Dr. Mezmer’s World of Bad Psychology, at an internet near you!
Yes!
I love listening to him. RIP
But I would have given him $20 to get a haircut. Just saying.
Whch strand would you have him cut ? Bloody expensive for a whole headful of hair though.
shim erian If he had conformed to an ordinary, mundane, humdrum haircut, perhaps it would, like Samson, have reduced him to an ordinary, mundane, humdrum mind. Maybe his genius was sourced from his elaborate coif.
+shim erian
These two people could easily have swapped hair and benefited thereby.
Clearly Gould inspired Justin Bieber's mop top.
it's a wig watch a few more ytube vids. it is exactly the same.
True wiseman of our times
What are his sources and which book are they talking about at [5:36] claiming that columbus had an argument with the people of his time about the circumference of the world, and on the other hand had no argument with the church about the world being flat or round. And if so, what is the source about the "Columbus egg" where he broke it and stood it on its "head"?
It is true that Abraham ibn Zaccuto had fixed the 24,000 mile number of Eratosthenes to 15,000 claiming the 24 number was Roman miles larger than the ones in his time. The Hebrew translation of Maimonides on the Mishna by Shlomo Ibn Tibon has the number correctly copied in numbers and words)
The Simpsons?
Evidently this moderator (not SJG) doesn't know the difference between Frank Zappa and Firesign Theatre
15:00 - I hear what he's saying about the ubiquity of dinosaurs. There's a book series I thoroughly enjoyed reading, about a wizard named Harry Dresden who practices openly in Chicago. It's a fabulous series and I highly recommend it. Anyway, I've often thought that a wonderful movie franchise could be built around the series. But once I thought more carefully about that, I realized that they would spoil it, by failing to pursue the story from beginning to end. What they'd do is pick the book they thought would make the most commercially successful movie, without regard for where it sat in the series. And I'm 100% certain that would be book #7, which is called Dead Beat. The reason is because it contains a dinosaur. Hollywood would simply be unable to resist, and they'd go for that, at the expense of the overall integrity of the movie series. I don't think there's ANY CHANCE they would opt otherwise. Once I thought that through I stopped wanting Harry Dresden movies.
I was watching *A Glorious Accident (6 of 7) Stephen Jay Gould: The Unanswerable* , where *Stephen Gould* says at 46:00 it would be Unethical - ( Amoral- WRONG ) - for humans and chimps to interbreed. Might that be because Gould has an inner conscious that tells him that? My point is WHY? Since Gould is
such a hard core scientist (and 100% non-theist) , why would the thought of humans and chimps interbreeding be so distasteful to him? After all, Gould does not see humans as being any better than chimps, so why would Stephen Gould say that such is "unethical"?? It would be _"scientifically interesting"_ , would it not, at least from a scientific point of view.
OK I'm answering as a Jew for a fellow Jew who is now dead, and speaking on his behalf hoping I didn't get it wrong. Many atheist Jews do see the importance of culture, of society and of self preservence. Jay was from a Marxist family, believing that people should be good to each other and cooperative with each other, accepting that culture is important to society (as he says in another lecture about him not understanding Christian texts in the original Latin: I'm a good New York Jew) as long as it does not deny the evidential record and the concluded truth. That outlook is generally described as the Ethical Culture Movement, usually traced back to Felix Adler.
Many of the Jewish scientists also "believe" or at least "invest" in the value of intelligence itself and its continuation. This is following Maimonides' understanding of the Greek philosophers as recorded (differently) by Plato or Aristotle, and further advanced by Benedict Spinoza in the middle ages and in our days by Leo Straus. Notice minute [24:25] where he says that he despises misuse of innacurate non-scientific descriptions such as genetic determinism for curtain social purposes which he also despises.
Breeding with Chimpanzess would be taking advantage of Chimpanzees against their will, with one of the parents unable to relate to their children the way they would with other children, and there would be no environment for such a child to grow up in. And would be creating offspring that would most probably be missing part of the human intelligence (see above). Last but not least it would be going against the culture of his time, and as his hairstyle, suit, shirt, and tie indicate, he was not an anarchist.
Gould believed science needed to be strongly paired with an ethical humanism. We all have a sense of ethics. I agree with Gould.
It does not take much to understand it’s unethical. There’s no need to project a silly post-modern, relativistic strawman over this topic or to imply the Dostoyevskian ‘anything is permitted’ trope. It’s just plain stupid and absurd.
If I understood Professor Gould right, his ethics is based on the aim to reduce human and other animals' suffering as much possible.
history=hi storyhis story is saying i am story
Fresh Meadows greatest son.
5 flat earthers disliked this video.
Its now 16...
🐐
The Earth is ROUND!!!!?????
ARRGHGHGHH!
😑😑😑😑😑😑
mon amour
Creepy gatekeeper
Wow: a personal opinion based on personal reaction. How quaint. Nothing creepy about SJG. 😢