[ExI] Anti-transhumanist crap on Kuro5hin and related.

[spike]

bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Michael Anissimov
...
Regarding Gould, everyone should read this:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/beware-of-gould.html 

-- 
Michael Anissimov



Thanks Michael.  I am aware of the criticisms of Gould, but do let me offer
this angle on the question using a sports analogy.

In Europe, a new hybrid sport is rapidly gaining popularity, the combination
of the apparently disparate sports of chess and boxing:

http://site.wcbo.org/content/index_en.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing

If one looks at the champions of this sport one will see that they are
neither the very best boxers nor the very best chess players, but they are
very competent at both sports.  These champions tend to be A-rated to expert
range at chess; our own Lee Corbin would crush either of them like bugs over
the board.  I would fear for his life however, should we put boxing gloves
on the poor chap and put in him the ring with these athletes.

Gould, Sagan, Asimov and Broderick are four examples of those who both
understand the science and are excellent writers.  To criticize their
science is analogous to the grandmaster criticizing the chess boxers' chess.
Let these scientists step into the ring with Gould in the arena of book
sales, or his ability to communicate complex ideas to the great unwashed
masses.  

Science writing for the masses is a hybrid sport.  Let the critics write
science in a way that is as readable and thought provoking as those of
Sagan's Dragons of Eden.  Invite them to take on Asimov in a science
nonfiction essay match, or challenge Damien to write a book to excel The
Spike.  Or write about evolution in a way that is as sparkly clear and
readable as Amara Graps' PhD thesis on interstellar dust.  Let them write
for me on evolution, given that I know not the specialists' terminology,
haven't the deep background in biology nor years to devote to a deep
understanding, yet I still value some understanding of the topic.

Many, if not most, Americans get exactly no formal training in evolution in
the universities.  Scientists, keep that in mind while trying to teach us
evolution, then make it as compelling as the essays Gould wrote after he
learned that he had terminal peritoneal mesothelioma and was told that the
median survival was six months.  The essays he then wrote took several of
his precious remaining hours, explaining to his audience that one may live
years after such a diagnosis.  He provided the statistical reasoning behind
why he chose to continue to hope for life.  He survived for the next twenty
years.  These post-diagnosis essays should be choice reading to encourage
anyone who receives grim news from the medics.  Gould spent his last two
decades producing a wonderful collection of science essays that deflected my
thought vector by about a radian.  

I know there are serious issues with Gould's science writings from the
specialists in the field.  I await their books.  Popular science writing for
the non-specialist is a hybrid sport.

spike