Stephen Jay Gould

On the Origin of Specious Critics

About Gould
 Doctorate in 1967 in paleontology at
Columbia University
 Teamed with biologist Biles Eldredge and
announced their evolutionary idea in
1972—argued evolution moves in abrupt
fits and sits with long periods of no
changes in species
 Taught geology and biology at Harvard
 Diagnosed with an incurable cancer in July
1982
 1998 – visited Stanford University
 Died May 20, 2002 from cancer
Genre & Rhetoric

 Critique of Rifkin’s Algeny book

 Published in Discover magazine
 Rhetorical analysis & refutation
of Rifkin’s work
Audience

 Readers interested in new

technologies concerning our
species—medicine and related
 Educated – should understand
the English language well
enough to understand Gould’s
critique
 Those favoring bioengineering
Argument

 Question: What are the

consequences of altering life’s
fundamental geometry and
permitting one species to design new
creatures at will, combining bits and
pieces of lineages distinct for billions
of years?
 Critique: “I regard Algeny as a
cleverly constructed tract of anti-
intellectual propaganda
masquerading as scholarship.”
Structure
 Clear point of view and outline for
essay
 Provides overview of Algeny
 Critique of Algeny presented on five
fronts
 Does not understand Darwinism
 Little comprehension of what science is
or how scientists work
 Unfair argument
 Ignores fair scholarship
 Full of ludicrous, simple errors
Style

 Harsh and straightforward

 Attempts to educate the reader
(definitions)
 References Rifkin’s points, then
refutes or shows why they are
inappropriate
 Sentences varied
 Addresses Rifkin by first name;
reads sometimes as though Gould is
speaking to Rifkin directly
Questions
 How effective is Gould’s critique
given his directness? Does it come
off as too strong, or is it appropriate?
Is Gould fair in his treatment of
Rifkin’s remarks?
 Comparing Rifkin with Gould, it
would appear Gould has more
expertise on this topic. Does this
make his critique more convincing or
credible?
 What effect does referencing Rifkin
directly have on the essay?