About book The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections In Natural History (1992)
This is a book of essays originally published by Gould in Natural History magazine, during the time that he was its editor (one of several such books, in fact). As such, it is an effort on his part to appeal to an educated popular audience with snippets of information about current research, particularly into paleontology and evolutionary science (his specialties), but also into other areas of biology and even geology and related sciences. Often, he is responding to then-current media fads, by trying to provide corrective information to misrepresentations of science in the popular press. This may partially explain the odd choice of title – the panda’s “thumb” doesn’t seem as sensational a topic to me as dinosaurs’ relationship to birds or the comparative measurements of male and female (human) brains, but perhaps it was the headline-grabber in 1980, for whatever reason.The essays are grouped into eight categories, explained nicely in a very well-written introduction, but without a final conclusion to tie them all together into any kind of grand theory. This leaves the book feeling a bit disjointed, and uncertain of purpose – Gould seems to have a point in each essay and even each section, but not really a “big idea” for putting them together in one volume. It is therefore best approached as a kind of exercise for the brain, and not a serious undertaking to comprehend evolutionary science. It is well-written and easy enough to follow that science teachers might be able to select single essays to demonstrate points to students, and Gould is amusing enough that students would find him readable.I’m a pretty good audience for this sort of book, because I don’t know that much about the specialized area Gould works in, but I’m smart enough to keep up with him and nerdy enough to be entertained by stories about science. I was especially interested in some of his historical essays, especially those that demonstrate that discarded theories were not results of irrationality or bad procedure on the part of their originators, but rather changes in overall paradigm. Gould is very good at demonstrating the social and cultural biases that have stunted scientific inquiry, and draws lessons from past mistakes that can be applied to more recent science.Being unfamiliar with the field and with Gould in particular, I was a bit surprised at how “traditionally” Darwinian he appears to be in these essays. My impression (possibly false) is that over the time since Darwin there have been many newer concepts added to the mix of random mutation and natural selection to explain how life forms develop and change, but Gould seems to be more interested in presenting an unsullied version of Darwin than in complicating that picture. This could have resulted from his concern over the vocal arguments of Creationists (as bad now as they were then), and a desire to keep things simple in a public forum. Or, it may be that evolutionary science was exactly as he presents it in 1980, which is now some time ago. I was also interested to learn that he strongly disagrees with Richard Dawkins’ argument from The Selfish Gene, also on my reading list, and I will have to remember to come back and check his points when I get around to reading that book. Until I do, I cannot comment on the debate.Overall, this is a very good book of scientific essays for anyone interested in the subject, and may open up new lines of inquiry to the attentive reader.
I bought this second hand over 13 years ago and, after reading it, should not have put it off for so long. The topic of evolution has interest for me for two reasons, the first being that biology is the one core area of science I've not studied formally and the second that it (evolution) has become such a flash-point issue in disputes between science and religion. Written as a series of vignettes about various topics, each was an entertaining and enlightening read, although I'm not sure if I'm any better off in terms of my knowledge about how evolution works. The opening essay concerns the Panda's Thumb, and Gould suggests that in evolution, exceptions rather than norms often prove the rule. However, with each essay comprising an 'exception' (of sorts), I'm not sure that a cohesive picture is drawn as a result. Indeed, I can see how some might take snippets of various essays and use them 'against' evolution. This would be unfortunate, as I think instead we are presented with an area of science that was, and presumably still is, undergoing healthy critical thinking and application.Many topics are discussed that would have popular appeal. Gould's issue with Dawkin's selfish gene idea is outlined. The evolution of humans, both biological and cultural is considered, with the latter an example of 'Lamarckism' and operating much faster than genetic based changes. Catastrophism and punctuated equilibrium are explored, the latter not suggesting change takes place more or less gradually, but the evidence we have for it in fossils does occur 'rapidly' due to a previously isolated group becoming the dominant and more fossilised species. Dinosaurs, mickey mouse and the inferiority (or otherwise) of marsupials are also covered. Since Gould was overt in separating the domains of science and religion as mutually exclusive (as I found out recently when reading Sam Harris), the weaving of the Arts, including religious arts infuses his writing, adding to the readability, but offering little in terms of the 'debate' between the two. It certainly makes the read a less confrontational one and those with a religious bent, like myself, will probably find themselves adopting a less defensive stance as they explore what can be a threatening area of science. As far as furthering the discussion between science and religion, I will need to go elsewhere.
Do You like book The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections In Natural History (1992)?
I'm rereading all of Stephen Jay Gould's works. They are well worth it for pure scientific entertainment. The Panda's Thumb was written in 1980, so it is a bit old. Yet it still stands up well. The pands has five digits plus a "thumb" that is not really a thumb at all. It does show how a thumb could form since there is no gene for a thumb. Gould argues against the slow change theory of evolution. Rather he argues for dramatic sudden changes. I believe Dawkins and others still continue this argument. I was fascinated by the magnetotactic bacterium. They build a magnet in their bodies made of tiny particles.
—Jimmy
Her okuduğumda hayranlığımın arttığı yazarlardan biridir Gould. (Diğerleri Zola, Carl Sagan ve Tolstoy).Evrim kitaplığının başyapıtlarından biri olan Darwin ve Sonrası'nın devamı niteliğindeki bu kitap da ilkini aratmayacak seviyede kolay anlaşılır ve Gould'un eğlenceli dili ile yazılmış 31 denemeden oluşuyor. Kitapta hatalı organlardan, Piltdown adamına, beyin ve kafatası ölçümlerinin cinsiyetçi ve ırkçı ama bilimsel bakımdan desteksiz amaçlarına, Dawkins'in evrim yorumlarına eleştirilerden dodo kuşlarına kadar bir çok ilginç konu hakkında bilgi veriliyor. Gould'un diğer kitapları gibi mutlaka okunması gereken bir eser.
—Yasin Sakal
In the introduction, Stephen Jay Gould hastens to remind us once again that he does not consider himself a polymath, merely another tradesman. In the ensuing remainder of the book, only the second collection of his long-running column in Natural History journal, he defies this modest claim by writing on a wide variety of scientific subjects, using an even wider variety of cultural reference points. The Panda's Thumb even has a theme, of sorts, described by Gould as a 'club sandwich' of topics on biology and history. A less explicit theme of the book is error and imperfection and their role in science, not just as an unavoidable side-effect of human enterprise but also as its essential driving force. Gould uses his wit to create lessons out of one forgotten and bizarre idea that all rock is actually fossilized microbes, the discredited field of craniometry, and previous generations' misconceptions about the intelligence of dinosaurs, showing us that making mistakes is proof that we are learning.
—Steven
