his eloquence was hardly unique among his competitors.
Are you sure he had any competitors?
Surely, his eloquence was not unique among similarly qualified academics, but probably few of them tried to get into the popular field. Maybe you need connections to get on the magazine circuit, but I suspect that the normal course of things are that the connections drag the scientist into writing. From there on, I imagine they’re judged by their communication skills, not their content or connections. Also, Gould started when he was fairly young and energetic, as contrasted with, say, Lewis Thomas, who retired to writing when he was at an age Gould barely reached.
I find the response to Barkley Rosser’s non sequitors disturbing. Sure, if he wants to pattern-match “gene’s eye view” and start arguing about group selection, by all means argue about it, but don’t accept his claim that it is relevant to this post! And punctuated equilibrium? Would it make a difference to any of this if Gould were an important theorist?
his eloquence was hardly unique among his competitors.
Are you sure he had any competitors?
Surely, his eloquence was not unique among similarly qualified academics, but probably few of them tried to get into the popular field. Maybe you need connections to get on the magazine circuit, but I suspect that the normal course of things are that the connections drag the scientist into writing. From there on, I imagine they’re judged by their communication skills, not their content or connections. Also, Gould started when he was fairly young and energetic, as contrasted with, say, Lewis Thomas, who retired to writing when he was at an age Gould barely reached.
I find the response to Barkley Rosser’s non sequitors disturbing. Sure, if he wants to pattern-match “gene’s eye view” and start arguing about group selection, by all means argue about it, but don’t accept his claim that it is relevant to this post! And punctuated equilibrium? Would it make a difference to any of this if Gould were an important theorist?