topics: |  biology | evolution | paleontology | genetics | sociology | postmodern

Historical study of scientific racism.  Presents a convincing argument
against biological determinism, the belief that "the social and economic
differences between human groups—primarily races, classes, and sexes—arise
from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an
accurate reflection of biology."  Also opposes positions that attempt to
measure intelligence in terms of craniometry, or through psychological
testing.  Challenges

	the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location
	within the brain, its quantification as one number for each
	individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single
	series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and
	disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior
	and deserve their status."

As in many Gould articles, the historical perspective is beautifully
presented.  We get to know how Paul Broca [of Broca's area fame] defended the
measurement of cranial volume as a measure of intelligence.  Somehow in all
these measures Black skulls came out worse than white skulls.

But it is chapter 5 onwards, where he challenges the use of IQ as a
single measure of intelligence, that has come in for the most severe attack.
Many psychologists found his opinions ill-informed (see wikipedia for links
to pro and con testaments).  Many of the opponents claimed that he was not
familiar with their key literature.  However, with Howard Gardener's Theory
of multiple intelligences some aspects of his argument have perhaps been
vindicated.

Maybe I am already among the converted, but when I read it in the early
90s, his argument seemed to make good sense. - AM nov 08

Writing style

Gould, on his writing style (from interview on Bookwire):

I once made a division, a bit simplistic, between two great traditions of
science writing. One of them is Galilean, with a tendency to focus on the
fascination of nature's puzzles. I call it Galilean because Galileo wrote
his two great dialogues in Italian and not as formal Latin
treatises. Darwin is surely in that tradition. Darwin can wax poetic but
the power is mainly in the argument and the fascination of examples. People
tend to think The Origin of Species is a popular version of some technical
monograph he wrote. They don't realize he chose to present this great work
as a book for the general public, and there is no technical monograph
corresponding to it. I see myself in that tradition -- trying to write as
clearly, elegantly, and broadly as possible about the fascinating
intellectual puzzles of nature.

The other tradition, which I call Franciscan, is nature poetry. I
respect people who can do that, Loren Eisely, for example. Lewis
Thomas is somewhat in between. Edward Wilson is somewhat in between;
he can get quite poetic. I can for a paragraph or two every once in a
while but it's not going to be my general style.