View Single Post
  #30  
Old 04-14-2016, 12:37 PM
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 37,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surreal View Post
Okay, but no comments at all on the first link? The one that said "almost every detail of his analysis is wrong", “Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results”, and "I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ came and he never even bothered to mention Michael’s study, I just felt he was a charlatan.”
Gould is certainly no charlatan. That's only one of many books. He's been a very influential figure in evolutionary biology. And being biased about a certain idea and getting an analysis wrong does not make him a crank. If so, there would be a pretty large number cranks among scientists.

Again, you are quoting a newspaper report rather than the opinion of Gould among actual scientists. And the article also contains this quote:

Quote:
As for the new finding’s bearing on Dr. Gould’s reputation, Dr. Kitcher said: “Steve doesn’t come out as a rogue but as someone who makes mistakes. If Steve were around he would probably defend himself with great ingenuity.”
In this and other cases, Gould interpreted data to fit his own intellectual framework. But that's been the case for many influential scientists. It doesn't make them cranks.