Stephen Jay Gould

1
Stephen Jay Gould

• On the Origin of Specious Critics

2
About Gould

• Doctorate in 1967 in paleontology at Columbia
  University
• Teamed with biologist Biles Eldredge and
  announced their evolutionary idea in 1972argued
  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

3
Genre Rhetoric

• Critique of Rifkins Algeny book
• Published in Discover magazine
• Rhetorical analysis refutation of Rifkins work

4
Audience

• Readers interested in new technologies concerning
  our speciesmedicine and related
• Educated should understand the English language
  well enough to understand Goulds critique
• Those favoring bioengineering

5
Argument

• Question What are the consequences of altering
  lifes 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.

6
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

7
Style

• Harsh and straightforward
• Attempts to educate the reader (definitions)
• References Rifkins 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

8
Questions

• How effective is Goulds critique given his
  directness? Does it come off as too strong, or
  is it appropriate? Is Gould fair in his
  treatment of Rifkins 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?