Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

Kim Sterelny

Dawkins vs Gould

The names of Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould will be familiar to readers of popular science books, but sometimes its difficult to place the two in context. Dawkins is responsible for some provocative work, such the idea of the 'selfish' gene, but his view seems to be the one adopted by the mainstream. Gould on the other hand seems more moderate and conciliatory in his books, but has sometimes been seen as a thorn in the side of the scientific establishment, with his ideas of punctuated equilibrium. This book summarises the positions of these two famous biologists and does an excellent job in providing the required context.

However, I didn't feel that the book provided evidence of great disagreements between the two scientists. Partly this is due to the passage of time, which allows discordant views to be accepted into the mainstream. But I think there is always the temptation to make more of such disagreements than is really there. In the book only the last couple of chapters deal with the supposed antagonism. Sterelny is a supporter of Dawkins, but this means he assumes that his ideas are the same as Dawkins, rather than quoting what he has actually written. So to me it seemed more a case of Sterelny vs Gould.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 155 pages
ISBN: 1840462493
Salesrank: 225465
Weight:0.36 lbs

Published: 2001 Icon Books UK

Marketplace:New from $88.87:Used from $0.11

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 192 pages
ISBN: 1840464712
Salesrank: 1241128
Weight:1.74 lbs

Published: 2005 Icon Books Ltd

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 155 pages
ISBN: 1840462493
Salesrank: 686734
Weight:0.36 lbs

Published: 2001 Icon Books

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 459.09:Used from CDN$ 0.13

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
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 that shows no sign of waning. Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, conceives of evolution as a struggle between gene lineages; Gould, who wrote Wonderful Life and Rocks of Ages, sees it as a struggle between organisms. For Dawkins, the principles of evolutionary biology apply just as well to humans as they do to all living creatures; for Gould, however, this sociobiology is not just ill-motivated but wrong, and dangerous. Dawkins’ views have been caricatured, and the man painted as a crazed reductionist, shrinking all the variety and complexity of life down to a struggle for existence between blind and selfish genes. Gould, too, has been falsely represented by creationists as rejecting the fundamental principles of Darwinism itself. 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.

Product Description

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 that shows no sign of waning.

Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, conceives of evolution as a struggle between gene lineages; Gould, who wrote Wonderful Life and Rocks of Ages, sees it as a struggle between organisms. For Dawkins, the principles of evolutionary biology apply just as well to humans as they do to all living creatures; for Gould, however, this sociobiology is not just ill-motivated but wrong, and dangerous.

Dawkins’ views have been caricatured, and the man painted as a crazed reductionist, shrinking all the variety and complexity of life down to a struggle for existence between blind and selfish genes. Gould, too, has been falsely represented by creationists as rejecting the fundamental principles of Darwinism itself.

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.

wonderful *****
This is the most engaging book on evolution I've read since reading The Selfish Gene nearly twenty years ago. The author's grasp of theoretical fine points is impressive, his writing style is crisp, his anecdotes numerous.

wonderful *****

This is the most engaging book on evolution I've read since reading The Selfish Gene nearly twenty years ago. The author's grasp of theoretical fine points is impressive, his writing style is crisp, his anecdotes numerous.

Focussing on the science rather than on the politics *****
This is one of three semi-popular books that I know of about the disputes between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould about the nature of evolutionary biology, but it is quite different from the other two. Both Ullica Segerstråle ("Defenders of the Truth") and Andrew Brown ("The Darwin Wars") focus on the politics and personalities of the people involved, but Kim Sterelny refers very little to these aspects, and avoids chatty information that has little bearing on the facts (who poured water on whom on which occasion?). Instead he concentrates on the science, and on Dawkins and Gould in particular, saying little about the other participants in the controversies. As a result he has written a very useful book that should be of interest to anyone who wants to know what the arguments were about. An important point is that the ideas of Dawkins and Gould are by no means as divergent as one might gather from a superficial knowledge of their work. In fact, they agree about much more than they disagree about. Both of them accept, without reservation, the basic correctness of natural selection as the fundamental driving force of evolution; neither of them is even remotely an ally of the pseudo-science of creationism or its more recent manifestation as intelligent design. Where they differ is about the fundamental unit of selection. For Dawkins, the unit of selection is the gene, or, in some minor circumstances, the individual. Gould accepted the possibility of selection at higher levels, most notably the species. They also differ about what happened in the Cambrian and other "explosions". For Dawkins (as for Darwin), this was business as usual, and the only reason that it may appear otherwise is our difficulty in appreciating that a period of, say, 50000 years is very long in terms of our experience, but immeasurably short on a geological time scale. For Gould these were periods of evolutionary inventiveness, when whole new phyla appeared or disappeared. Sterelny presents the arguments on both sides and then discusses them, pointing out what he sees as weaknesses in their arguments, finally indicating which he agrees with. This usually turns out to be the position of Dawkins, and Sterelny admits that on the whole he does favour Dawkins. However, I don't see that as a fault: an author who remained scrupulously neutral in the whole debate and never indicated a personal opinion would produce an impossibly boring book; moreover, anyone who understands the science well enough to write authoritatively about it must inevitably arrive at some personal opinions. I have read the earlier three-star review by Mohroy. It gives a fair account of the book and I understand why Mohroy felt that it only merited three stars, but my feeling is that it merits much more than that, and that a totally unbiassed account of the controversies would be unreadable.

Focussing on the science rather than on the politics *****

This is one of three semi-popular books that I know of about the disputes between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould about the nature of evolutionary biology, but it is quite different from the other two. Both Ullica Segerstråle ("Defenders of the Truth") and Andrew Brown ("The Darwin Wars") focus on the politics and personalities of the people involved, but Kim Sterelny refers very little to these aspects, and avoids chatty information that has little bearing on the facts (who poured water on whom on which occasion?). Instead he concentrates on the science, and on Dawkins and Gould in particular, saying little about the other participants in the controversies.

As a result he has written a very useful book that should be of interest to anyone who wants to know what the arguments were about. An important point is that the ideas of Dawkins and Gould are by no means as divergent as one might gather from a superficial knowledge of their work. In fact, they agree about much more than they disagree about. Both of them accept, without reservation, the basic correctness of natural selection as the fundamental driving force of evolution; neither of them is even remotely an ally of the pseudo-science of creationism or its more recent manifestation as intelligent design.

Where they differ is about the fundamental unit of selection. For Dawkins, the unit of selection is the gene, or, in some minor circumstances, the individual. Gould accepted the possibility of selection at higher levels, most notably the species. They also differ about what happened in the Cambrian and other "explosions". For Dawkins (as for Darwin), this was business as usual, and the only reason that it may appear otherwise is our difficulty in appreciating that a period of, say, 50000 years is very long in terms of our experience, but immeasurably short on a geological time scale. For Gould these were periods of evolutionary inventiveness, when whole new phyla appeared or disappeared.

Sterelny presents the arguments on both sides and then discusses them, pointing out what he sees as weaknesses in their arguments, finally indicating which he agrees with. This usually turns out to be the position of Dawkins, and Sterelny admits that on the whole he does favour Dawkins. However, I don't see that as a fault: an author who remained scrupulously neutral in the whole debate and never indicated a personal opinion would produce an impossibly boring book; moreover, anyone who understands the science well enough to write authoritatively about it must inevitably arrive at some personal opinions.

I have read the earlier three-star review by Mohroy. It gives a fair account of the book and I understand why Mohroy felt that it only merited three stars, but my feeling is that it merits much more than that, and that a totally unbiassed account of the controversies would be unreadable.

Interesting summary, but pro Dawkins ***
In this book Kim Sterelny attempts to lay out the views ofboth Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. The first section discusses Dawkins ideas, the second Gould and his successors and finally there is a bit of analysis. It is pretty workmanlike and a good intro for the somewhat informed, but the author is, admittedly at the end, biased toward Dawkins positions, interestingly enough on the nature of science issue more than any matters with evolutionary theory. This is readily apparent throughout the book, when Sterelny admitted his favoring Dawkins more, I was hardly surprised, due to the structure of the earlier arguments. In the Dawkins sections each Dawkins position is explained, a Gouldian objection is pointed out and then the author points how Dawkins didn't really mean it that way. The Dawkins' objections to Gould are basically unanswered. Personally I can see the authors point and really Gould did have a tendency in his work toward straw man arguments, but Dawkins is not all that dissimilar and has always liked to fudge points when confronted on evolutionary issues while slamming down on any deviation he sees from orthodoxy. But the fervor of this dispute with its transatlantic qualities is ill served by this account. Interestingly enough from my American eyes, E. O. Wilson is trotted out when he contradicts Gould, but not with Dawkins. Reading all this you are probably wondering why I gave it three rather than two stars. This is because it is quite readable and brief and does a pretty good job of summarizing the issues, even if it tends to muddy them. Given that, in my opinion at least, the "truth" probably lies somewhere in between and perpendicular to both this does not really harm the book all that much but it doesn't help much in forwarding the books stated purpose.

Interesting summary, but pro Dawkins ***

In this book Kim Sterelny attempts to lay out the views ofboth Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. The first section discusses Dawkins ideas, the second Gould and his successors and finally there is a bit of analysis. It is pretty workmanlike and a good intro for the somewhat informed, but the author is, admittedly at the end, biased toward Dawkins positions, interestingly enough on the nature of science issue more than any matters with evolutionary theory.

This is readily apparent throughout the book, when Sterelny admitted his favoring Dawkins more, I was hardly surprised, due to the structure of the earlier arguments. In the Dawkins sections each Dawkins position is explained, a Gouldian objection is pointed out and then the author points how Dawkins didn't really mean it that way. The Dawkins' objections to Gould are basically unanswered.

Personally I can see the authors point and really Gould did have a tendency in his work toward straw man arguments, but Dawkins is not all that dissimilar and has always liked to fudge points when confronted on evolutionary issues while slamming down on any deviation he sees from orthodoxy. But the fervor of this dispute with its transatlantic qualities is ill served by this account. Interestingly enough from my American eyes, E. O. Wilson is trotted out when he contradicts Gould, but not with Dawkins.

Reading all this you are probably wondering why I gave it three rather than two stars. This is because it is quite readable and brief and does a pretty good job of summarizing the issues, even if it tends to muddy them. Given that, in my opinion at least, the "truth" probably lies somewhere in between and perpendicular to both this does not really harm the book all that much but it doesn't help much in forwarding the books stated purpose.

Very interesting, I'd like to see the revised edition. ****
This is a basically successful book, encapsulating some of the disputes in evolution, particularly between Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould. For someone who just wants the basics of the dispute without having to wade through lengthy or complex material, it is perfect. I think it could be improved, though. Sterelny doesn't have particularly good notes, more like a recommended reading list. It is not easy to tell exactly where he is getting his statements. He points, for example, to Dawkin's criticism of Gould & Eldridge Punctuated Equilibrium as a gloss in The Blind Watchmaker. Sterelny regards this as unfair, but I actually thought it was quite good. I think his criticism as regards local population changes is entirely fair. Sterelny argues that he is not taking into account the portion of the theory that deals with speciation. But exactly where, in the various iterations is the latter point? I don't remember it in the original article - is this my failing memory, or is that a later development, perhaps after The Blind Watchmaker was written? I'll have to dig up and reread all the articles to find out, whereas a simple citation might have made it immediately clear. I also felt that Sterelny did not discuss the problem of definitions thoroughly enough. He does this with the question of increasing fitness, pointing out that this may true over the history of a particular species, but perhaps not true between different species separated by long time spans. I think this is true of many issues of contention. Part of the issue of the role of chance in evolution depends upon whether or not one considers mass extinctions to be part of evolution specifically, or rather a feature of natural history that changes the conditions under which evolution operates. One of the criticisms of Gould, such as Dawkins aforementioned criticism of Punctuated Equilibrium, is that he exaggerates the novelty of his ideas. In these cases, his critics don't so much disagree with what he is saying as argue that he is producing useful glosses or drawing out implications that are true, but not revolutionary, and that in the process, he distorts other people's work, notably Darwin's. Certainly worth reading. I think that Sterelny often explains the two combatants' positions more clearly than they themselves do. Those interested in pinning down the subject more firmly will regret the lack of citations, but there are numerous recommendations for further reading, tied to particular subjects by chapter.

Very interesting, I'd like to see the revised edition. ****

This is a basically successful book, encapsulating some of the disputes in evolution, particularly between Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould. For someone who just wants the basics of the dispute without having to wade through lengthy or complex material, it is perfect.

I think it could be improved, though. Sterelny doesn't have particularly good notes, more like a recommended reading list. It is not easy to tell exactly where he is getting his statements. He points, for example, to Dawkin's criticism of Gould & Eldridge Punctuated Equilibrium as a gloss in The Blind Watchmaker. Sterelny regards this as unfair, but I actually thought it was quite good. I think his criticism as regards local population changes is entirely fair. Sterelny argues that he is not taking into account the portion of the theory that deals with speciation. But exactly where, in the various iterations is the latter point? I don't remember it in the original article - is this my failing memory, or is that a later development, perhaps after The Blind Watchmaker was written? I'll have to dig up and reread all the articles to find out, whereas a simple citation might have made it immediately clear.

I also felt that Sterelny did not discuss the problem of definitions thoroughly enough. He does this with the question of increasing fitness, pointing out that this may true over the history of a particular species, but perhaps not true between different species separated by long time spans. I think this is true of many issues of contention. Part of the issue of the role of chance in evolution depends upon whether or not one considers mass extinctions to be part of evolution specifically, or rather a feature of natural history that changes the conditions under which evolution operates. One of the criticisms of Gould, such as Dawkins aforementioned criticism of Punctuated Equilibrium, is that he exaggerates the novelty of his ideas. In these cases, his critics don't so much disagree with what he is saying as argue that he is producing useful glosses or drawing out implications that are true, but not revolutionary, and that in the process, he distorts other people's work, notably Darwin's.

Certainly worth reading. I think that Sterelny often explains the two combatants' positions more clearly than they themselves do. Those interested in pinning down the subject more firmly will regret the lack of citations, but there are numerous recommendations for further reading, tied to particular subjects by chapter.

Useful to a narrow audience ***
One of the wonders of the Internet was supposed to be the way it could get niche ideas and products into the hands of the very few who might be interested in them, and I am happy to report that it seems to be working. There cannot be a great mass of people who are (a) both aware of and highly interested in the conflict between evolutionary biology popularizers Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, but (b) lacking in sufficient time and education to satisfy their curiosity from primary materials. But for those few who are, as I was, interested in a layperson's outline of the points of conflict between the Dawkins and Gould camps, Kim Sterelny has written one. Sterelny, a philosophy professor, is strict about giving credit to each camp where credit is due, and about identifying his own biases. He bends over backwards to be fair, and he succeeds. Sterelny writes at such a level that if your only education in evolutionary biology comes from popular works like Dawkins's and Gould's, his overview is entirely comprehensible. Though this was good for me, it means that he is probably writing far below the level of most people interested in the convroversies he describes. I suppose it is odd for someone who actually is in the market for a book just like the one Sterelny wrote to wonder who would actually buy such a book, but that is the position I find myself in. One really should be at least somewhat familiar with the Dawkins/Gould divide before reading this book, but if you are too familiar with it, that means you have education enough that this book is pitched too low for you. Those on the razor's edge will get the most out of it. And the delight of the Internet is that there is a good chance enough of that rare breed of people can find this book that it was worth writing, and that those of you in the narrow audience that will find it worth reading -- as I did -- are able to find it.

Useful to a narrow audience ***

One of the wonders of the Internet was supposed to be the way it could get niche ideas and products into the hands of the very few who might be interested in them, and I am happy to report that it seems to be working. There cannot be a great mass of people who are (a) both aware of and highly interested in the conflict between evolutionary biology popularizers Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, but (b) lacking in sufficient time and education to satisfy their curiosity from primary materials. But for those few who are, as I was, interested in a layperson's outline of the points of conflict between the Dawkins and Gould camps, Kim Sterelny has written one.

Sterelny, a philosophy professor, is strict about giving credit to each camp where credit is due, and about identifying his own biases. He bends over backwards to be fair, and he succeeds.

Sterelny writes at such a level that if your only education in evolutionary biology comes from popular works like Dawkins's and Gould's, his overview is entirely comprehensible. Though this was good for me, it means that he is probably writing far below the level of most people interested in the convroversies he describes.

I suppose it is odd for someone who actually is in the market for a book just like the one Sterelny wrote to wonder who would actually buy such a book, but that is the position I find myself in. One really should be at least somewhat familiar with the Dawkins/Gould divide before reading this book, but if you are too familiar with it, that means you have education enough that this book is pitched too low for you. Those on the razor's edge will get the most out of it. And the delight of the Internet is that there is a good chance enough of that rare breed of people can find this book that it was worth writing, and that those of you in the narrow audience that will find it worth reading -- as I did -- are able to find it.

Really nice overview of both evolutionary theory and the Gould v Dawkins conflict *****
I spent some time looking for a decent primer on evolutionary theory. I've not as yet found something which strikes the right balance between simplicity and depth, but in looking I came across this. It really is an excellent little book. Gould vs Dawkins for beginners was never going to be easy because you have the challenge of explaining both their actual argument, and the theory behind their argument which is often quite complex. Sterelny manages this well, his explanations are comprehensible to someone who hasn't studied science since GCSE but not too patronising for someone who already grasps the ideas pretty well. Explaining the differences between Dawkins and Gould is in itself a difficult task because at the end of the day they're pretty slim. But after I'd read the book I felt like I'd picked up a fair understanding of not only what those differences are (or were) but also how they fit into the wider picture of Dawkin and Gould's approaches to science. Definitely a must for anyone who wants to know a little more about the theory of evolution.

Really nice overview of both evolutionary theory and the Gould v Dawkins conflict *****

I spent some time looking for a decent primer on evolutionary theory. I've not as yet found something which strikes the right balance between simplicity and depth, but in looking I came across this.

It really is an excellent little book. Gould vs Dawkins for beginners was never going to be easy because you have the challenge of explaining both their actual argument, and the theory behind their argument which is often quite complex. Sterelny manages this well, his explanations are comprehensible to someone who hasn't studied science since GCSE but not too patronising for someone who already grasps the ideas pretty well.

Explaining the differences between Dawkins and Gould is in itself a difficult task because at the end of the day they're pretty slim. But after I'd read the book I felt like I'd picked up a fair understanding of not only what those differences are (or were) but also how they fit into the wider picture of Dawkin and Gould's approaches to science.

Definitely a must for anyone who wants to know a little more about the theory of evolution.

A pacifier from the Pacific *****
Kim Sterelny's overview of the Stephen Gould - Richard Dawkins conflicting views of evolution is a masterful summation. Setting himself an immense task, he addresses the material published by the two evolutionists, assessing evidence, logic and interpretation. To Sterelny's lasting credit, personality is almost entirely omitted in this account. A brief education background note [Dawkins studied under Tinbergen, Gould's mentor was George Gaylord Simpson] and Sterelny moves quickly to the essence of the debate. His presentation makes this a fine introduction to the issues involved. Debate is a gentle word to apply to some of the acrimonious exchanges the pair engaged in either directly or through proxies. The opening shot was Gould's scornful review of Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" in which Dennett challenged Gould and Eldredge's notion of punctuated equilibrium as setting the pace of evolution. The clash brought to light more fundamental differences in outlook - gene-centred evolution or a multi-level interacting set of forces. As Sterelny ultimately points out, the two are subject to merging into a broader synthesis. Dawkins has made that point frequently, as Sterelny notes, but that reality failed to find fertile ground on this side of the Atlantic. Gene-centred evolution results in the creation of adaptations through mutations. Whether these adaptations are successful over time is the story of evolution. Gould found many ways to challenge this theme, chiefly because it would apply equally to human evolution, something Gould always found abhorrent. Gould's argument went deeper than human evolution. He advanced "contingency" and mass extinctions of whatever cause, as more viable mechanisms than what he labelled "gene centrism". Sterelny presents both positions with admirable clarity and laudable equilibrium. It would be churlish to criticise Sterelny's temperate treatment of Gould's notions. Dawkins and Dennett have already performed the task sufficiently, although Sterelny skirts Dennett's examination. The loss of Gould to cancer has not quelled the debate, thus proving it wasn't simply a clash of personalities. A Gould "camp", with adherents on both sides of the Atlantic, maintains the heated dispute. Lewontin and Kamin in America and the Rose cabal in the UK still launch verbal missiles at the Dawkins target. Sterelny keeps his focus tight in this book, not being diverted to these disputants. In performing this feat, Sterelny might be criticised for failing to note why the debate is worth notice by a wider audience. He certainly hasn't written this for the academic community, although many in other disciplines might benefit from his insights and brisk narrative. Sterelny's position as a philosopher located in New Zealand is sufficient example to show how far the debate has reached. Its very universality might have prompted him to reflect on its impact on social questions. Even so, his effort is highly commendable and deserves the widest possible readership. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

A pacifier from the Pacific *****

Kim Sterelny's overview of the Stephen Gould - Richard Dawkins conflicting views of evolution is a masterful summation. Setting himself an immense task, he addresses the material published by the two evolutionists, assessing evidence, logic and interpretation. To Sterelny's lasting credit, personality is almost entirely omitted in this account. A brief education background note [Dawkins studied under Tinbergen, Gould's mentor was George Gaylord Simpson] and Sterelny moves quickly to the essence of the debate. His presentation makes this a fine introduction to the issues involved.

Debate is a gentle word to apply to some of the acrimonious exchanges the pair engaged in either directly or through proxies. The opening shot was Gould's scornful review of Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" in which Dennett challenged Gould and Eldredge's notion of punctuated equilibrium as setting the pace of evolution. The clash brought to light more fundamental differences in outlook - gene-centred evolution or a multi-level interacting set of forces. As Sterelny ultimately points out, the two are subject to merging into a broader synthesis. Dawkins has made that point frequently, as Sterelny notes, but that reality failed to find fertile ground on this side of the Atlantic.

Gene-centred evolution results in the creation of adaptations through mutations. Whether these adaptations are successful over time is the story of evolution. Gould found many ways to challenge this theme, chiefly because it would apply equally to human evolution, something Gould always found abhorrent. Gould's argument went deeper than human evolution. He advanced "contingency" and mass extinctions of whatever cause, as more viable mechanisms than what he labelled "gene centrism". Sterelny presents both positions with admirable clarity and laudable equilibrium. It would be churlish to criticise Sterelny's temperate treatment of Gould's notions. Dawkins and Dennett have already performed the task sufficiently, although Sterelny skirts Dennett's examination.

The loss of Gould to cancer has not quelled the debate, thus proving it wasn't simply a clash of personalities. A Gould "camp", with adherents on both sides of the Atlantic, maintains the heated dispute. Lewontin and Kamin in America and the Rose cabal in the UK still launch verbal missiles at the Dawkins target. Sterelny keeps his focus tight in this book, not being diverted to these disputants. In performing this feat, Sterelny might be criticised for failing to note why the debate is worth notice by a wider audience. He certainly hasn't written this for the academic community, although many in other disciplines might benefit from his insights and brisk narrative. Sterelny's position as a philosopher located in New Zealand is sufficient example to show how far the debate has reached. Its very universality might have prompted him to reflect on its impact on social questions. Even so, his effort is highly commendable and deserves the widest possible readership. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Excellent synthesis *****
I found Kim Sterelny's review to be a very accurate yet understandable summary. I have read many books written by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, so I already had a rough sketch of their contention. Sterelny's book was a great way to solidify the nature of Gould and Dawkins' scientific conflict and a great way to fill in the gaps. I was particularly grateful by the Gould section. Dawkins has stated his views on evolution and Gould quite extensively, but I have been less exposed to Gould's original writings on punctuated equilibrium (probably because, as Sterelny noted, Gould has written about the subject mostly in essays and scientific papers). The Gould section in this book was a great clarification of punctuated equilibrium and other Gould theories. I have not heard the opinions of the title subjects on this book, although I would very much like to. But for the moment, I found 'Dawkins vs. Gould' to be an objective, impartial and fair description of this well-known scientific clash.

Excellent synthesis *****

I found Kim Sterelny's review to be a very accurate yet understandable summary. I have read many books written by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, so I already had a rough sketch of their contention. Sterelny's book was a great way to solidify the nature of Gould and Dawkins' scientific conflict and a great way to fill in the gaps.

I was particularly grateful by the Gould section. Dawkins has stated his views on evolution and Gould quite extensively, but I have been less exposed to Gould's original writings on punctuated equilibrium (probably because, as Sterelny noted, Gould has written about the subject mostly in essays and scientific papers). The Gould section in this book was a great clarification of punctuated equilibrium and other Gould theories.

I have not heard the opinions of the title subjects on this book, although I would very much like to. But for the moment, I found 'Dawkins vs. Gould' to be an objective, impartial and fair description of this well-known scientific clash.

Great read!! *****
A fascinating account on how two scientists fought for the prize of universal acceptance.

Great read!! *****

A fascinating account on how two scientists fought for the prize of universal acceptance.

Good, it gives too much importance to some unimportant detai ****
I recommend this book to anyone who want's to identify and familiarize with different currents of thought in evolution, but this two gigants are not the only ones with opinion. Gould and Dawkins, both great scientists and great thinkers, are not the only ones with valid opinions on this subject, what they have that makes them exploitable is a long history of mild or irrelevant disagreements. A mild disagreement for example is that Dawkins goes for the gene as the target for selection, Gould don't think that way. An irrelevant disagreement may be that Dawkins is an atheist and Gould really believes in God. The principal flaw I see is that there are more players in this game, there's also Ernst Mayr, for example, that doesn't support the gene as the unit of selection, and doesn't support punctuated equilibrium either. But all of them agree in most of the other basis of the theory, though the unit of selection is an important point.

Good, it gives too much importance to some unimportant detai ****

I recommend this book to anyone who want's to identify and familiarize with different currents of thought in evolution, but this two gigants are not the only ones with opinion. Gould and Dawkins, both great scientists and great thinkers, are not the only ones with valid opinions on this subject, what they have that makes them exploitable is a long history of mild or irrelevant disagreements. A mild disagreement for example is that Dawkins goes for the gene as the target for selection, Gould don't think that way. An irrelevant disagreement may be that Dawkins is an atheist and Gould really believes in God. The principal flaw I see is that there are more players in this game, there's also Ernst Mayr, for example, that doesn't support the gene as the unit of selection, and doesn't support punctuated equilibrium either. But all of them agree in most of the other basis of the theory, though the unit of selection is an important point.

In response to the nonscientist ***
Thanks for using this BOOK REVIEW section to enlighten us all on your personal opinion of evolutionary biology. Yet another example of nonscientists trying to sneak their opinions on the masses when it's completely irrelevant. You speak of Dawkins and Gould as resorting to circular reasoning in their arguments, however, this book is not an argument over the reality of evolution, it is a debate about how natural selection works and at what level. Had they been asked to state the evidence for natural selection, both Dawkins and Gould would be able to present compelling data to support it, as would any biologist.

In response to the nonscientist ***

Thanks for using this BOOK REVIEW section to enlighten us all on your personal opinion of evolutionary biology. Yet another example of nonscientists trying to sneak their opinions on the masses when it's completely irrelevant. You speak of Dawkins and Gould as resorting to circular reasoning in their arguments, however, this book is not an argument over the reality of evolution, it is a debate about how natural selection works and at what level. Had they been asked to state the evidence for natural selection, both Dawkins and Gould would be able to present compelling data to support it, as would any biologist.

A Popular Account of Popular Accounts ***
I am of a few minds about this book. It has both positive and negative characteristics, depending upon the questions one asks of it. On the one hand, this is a book about evolution. Given that many parts of society still cling to their various Creation Myths, any source that provides a rational framework for discussion about how the world works should be highly rated indeed. Sterelny provides a biological basis sufficient to spark interest in a virgin mind. If you don't know anything about evolution or evolutionary theory, then Dawkins vs. Gould (as opposed to not reading on the subject at all) is perhaps worthwhile. On the other hand, Dawkins vs. Gould is clearly the work of an under-informed, non-biologist. The debate from both sides of the Adaptationist Programme (i.e., the school of thought whence all evolutionary change results from natural selection) runs much deeper than just being between a well-spoken advocate, Dawkins, and Gould, an articulate critic. Stated plainly, Sterelny provides a passable popular account of the brilliant popular works of Dawkins and Gould. The question becomes, Why not simply read The Extended Phenotype, Wonderful Life and the like? On yet a third limb, I was somewhat disappointed by the physical volume of Dawkins vs. Gould. For the quality of the binding and grade of paper, I would have expected to pay half as much as the price suggested on the back cover. So, to sum up... Dawkins vs. Gould by Kim Sterelny is better than nothing, but the well-stocked library of evolution will not miss it.

A Popular Account of Popular Accounts ***

I am of a few minds about this book. It has both positive and negative characteristics, depending upon the questions one asks of it.

On the one hand, this is a book about evolution. Given that many parts of society still cling to their various Creation Myths, any source that provides a rational framework for discussion about how the world works should be highly rated indeed. Sterelny provides a biological basis sufficient to spark interest in a virgin mind. If you don't know anything about evolution or evolutionary theory, then Dawkins vs. Gould (as opposed to not reading on the subject at all) is perhaps worthwhile.

On the other hand, Dawkins vs. Gould is clearly the work of an under-informed, non-biologist. The debate from both sides of the Adaptationist Programme (i.e., the school of thought whence all evolutionary change results from natural selection) runs much deeper than just being between a well-spoken advocate, Dawkins, and Gould, an articulate critic. Stated plainly, Sterelny provides a passable popular account of the brilliant popular works of Dawkins and Gould. The question becomes, Why not simply read The Extended Phenotype, Wonderful Life and the like?

On yet a third limb, I was somewhat disappointed by the physical volume of Dawkins vs. Gould. For the quality of the binding and grade of paper, I would have expected to pay half as much as the price suggested on the back cover.

So, to sum up... Dawkins vs. Gould by Kim Sterelny is better than nothing, but the well-stocked library of evolution will not miss it.