GOULD, DAWKINS, SCIENCE

["Matthew Troutman" <m_troutman@hotmail.com>]

<<But for all the inflation in writing, Gould has in fact written to engage 
readers of all stripes, in popular and scholarly publications.  His 
arguments are interesting to read, period.  How much bald prose is there now 
published without any useful metaphorical device or departure from sterile 
passive voice?>>

Gould is by far of the best science popularizers, not for his ideas, but for 
his writing.  Although I think that Gould has at times said things that I 
wonder about, as a solid whole Gould offers much food for thought.  Richard 
Dawkins, another great science popularizer and expert of prose, is very much 
mistaken in his _Unweaving the Rainbow_ when he criticizes Gould for his 
writings.  I don't often disagree with Dawkins, who I think is one of the 
most stimulating popular (and scientific) evolutionary writers of the past 
century, but I think that the numerous feuds he has had with Gould over 
selfish genes and pluralism has soured his view of Gould and vice versa.

Gould and Dawkins have contributed both to science and its popularization 
greatly.  I think that it stems from their ability to write engagingly and 
with brevity over the most prolix scientific ideas.  The vast majority of 
science popularization is only comprehensible to scientists and science 
buffs, there are only a few notable exceptions. We need more Goulds and 
Dawkins for the spread of science through the general populace.  Carl Sagan, 
the single greatest science popularizer of all time, made it clear in nearly 
every single one of his popular books that knowledge of science to the 
public is extremely important.  I suggest that everyone read his _The 
Demon-Haunted World_, which should be read by high school students in order 
to graduate, for an example of why popularization is important for everyone. 
 (And maybe watch Cosmos, and take home his messages.)

Dinosaur paleontology has been subject to many recent and past popular 
works.  Just look at what got most paleontologists into paleontology.  
Interest in science comes naturally to most children, but it takes an extra 
little shove to interest them in a career in it.  Unfortunately, many recent 
popular works on dinosaurs are accessible only to those with a strong 
interest in science and do not mind the subtle mind-warping complexities and 
amount of scientific knowledge needed to understand such works.  Peter 
Dodson's book on ceratopsians was exceptionally well written, but I don't 
think many novices to the scientific experience appreciated it and were 
engaged by his capable writing because of the detail involved within the 
work.  Contrast with Bakker's _The Dinosaur Heresies_, written with a 
minimum of eye-glazing detail overcome by his excellent descriptions and 
analogies.

Popular paleontology and science works are too heavily directed towards the 
extremely small portion of the public that is relatively science literate.  
Although one walks a fine line between oversimplification and a propundance 
of details, the longest lasting popular science works such as _Cosmos_, _The 
Selfish Gene_, _The Blind Watchmaker_, _Dinosaur in a Haystack_, _Wonderful 
Life_, and _The Double Helix_ walk that fine line with grace and ease 
accomplished by few.  The key to popularization lies not in the subject that 
is being written, but the connections with the everyday human experience.  
If you look at the figures, the most popular and longest-lasting science 
books are the ones that put humanity, the world, and how we fit into it into 
perspective.  Science books for the general population need to be numinous.  
One does not need to be anthropocentric, but seldom is explained are the 
reasons _why_ a given subject is important.  _Cosmos_ gave us a vision of 
the cosmos and how we, no matter how insignificant, fit within this grand 
universe.  _The Blind Watchmaker_ showed that we do not need to resort to 
supernatural explanations for anything, and how we should be proud of world, 
with or without the final answer.  _Wonderful Life_ showed our humble 
beginnings and lucky we are to be who we are, no matter the accidental 
process that got us here.  _The Double Helix_ showed the humanity of 
scientists and the thrill of discovery, in this case the key to life itself.

Of course, we should not think that the public is so incredibly stupid that 
they cannot comprehend science.  Popular science works arre merely the tool 
to show the broad meanings of what science does for us.  There are (one in 
particular) popular science books that describe the intricate workings of 
life, but do it in a way that make it seem meaningful and important.  
Colorful writing and memorable analogies go a long way without sacrificing 
detail.  Popular science works need to strike a cord on many levels.  They 
need to show how science effects what we know about ourselves.  They need to 
fill a person with the wonder and awe appreciation of the world gives them.  
They need to stimulate thought and interest.  In many ways, popular science 
works of these kinds can be important for scientists themselves.

Matt Troutman
m_troutman@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com