Would you mind sharing your opinion on the debate at Moran’s blog? Which of the camps you identify with, if any?
I’m more or less in the middle. Moran is right that Dawkins and Dennett went a bit too far toward adaptationism (by dismissing the importance of neutral evolution) in the quoted passages. But it was forgivable carelessness/oversimplification on Dennett’s part. Dawkins, OTOH, is just being stubborn in not conceding that many naked-eye visible characters are probably selectively neutral. But Moran is being a bit of an asshole as well.
I strongly second Moran’s advice that everyone interested in biology should have read the “Spandrels” paper (pdf). But I would then add the recommendation that they read Queller’s delicious skewering of Gould and Lewontin in “The Spaniels of St. Marx” in which we are invited to admire G&L’s mastery of the ‘Dark Arts’.
I suppose I should mention that while I enjoy Gould’s ideas and writing, and usually admire Lewontin’s viewpoint regarding science, I think that they were both inexcusably in the wrong in their attacks on both “Sociobiology” and “The Bell Curve”.
Is Moran’s crusade against vestiges of adaptationism mere quibbling? I don’t think so. I will again recommend Stoltzfus’s series called “The Curious Disconnect” in order to see a little better how seemingly minor errors in outlook and attitude among scientists can impede progress.
Also, if you could write up a short list of top biology bloggers you follow and recommend, I’d be grateful.
I’m probably not the best person to ask. I’m an amateur who has been following the biology blogosphere for less than a year. Larry Moran’s blog has probably had the best coverage of evolutionary theory and molecular biology controversies. John Hawks covers human evolution, though I don’t follow him. Carl Zimmer has the best science journalism blog, IMHO.
If you want to find a collection of evolution blogs that match your tastes, I would advise you to look through a few months of the “Carnival of Evolution” (and follow the links there to find other blog carnivals and bloggers you might like.)
I’m more or less in the middle. Moran is right that Dawkins and Dennett went a bit too far toward adaptationism (by dismissing the importance of neutral evolution) in the quoted passages. But it was forgivable carelessness/oversimplification on Dennett’s part. Dawkins, OTOH, is just being stubborn in not conceding that many naked-eye visible characters are probably selectively neutral. But Moran is being a bit of an asshole as well.
I strongly second Moran’s advice that everyone interested in biology should have read the “Spandrels” paper (pdf). But I would then add the recommendation that they read Queller’s delicious skewering of Gould and Lewontin in “The Spaniels of St. Marx” in which we are invited to admire G&L’s mastery of the ‘Dark Arts’.
I suppose I should mention that while I enjoy Gould’s ideas and writing, and usually admire Lewontin’s viewpoint regarding science, I think that they were both inexcusably in the wrong in their attacks on both “Sociobiology” and “The Bell Curve”.
Is Moran’s crusade against vestiges of adaptationism mere quibbling? I don’t think so. I will again recommend Stoltzfus’s series called “The Curious Disconnect” in order to see a little better how seemingly minor errors in outlook and attitude among scientists can impede progress.
I’m probably not the best person to ask. I’m an amateur who has been following the biology blogosphere for less than a year. Larry Moran’s blog has probably had the best coverage of evolutionary theory and molecular biology controversies. John Hawks covers human evolution, though I don’t follow him. Carl Zimmer has the best science journalism blog, IMHO.
If you want to find a collection of evolution blogs that match your tastes, I would advise you to look through a few months of the “Carnival of Evolution” (and follow the links there to find other blog carnivals and bloggers you might like.)
I hadn’t read “The Spaniels of St. Marx” before. It is pretty funny.
I found Stoltzfus pretty yawn-inducing, though. He seems to be trying to make a revolution out of a storm in a teacup.