Everyone picks one of the following questions to work on. That will make roughly 4 groups that should collectively come to some loose consensus about your answer. At minimum, make one original post and respond to one other student's post.
What's Gould's thesis?
Don't get distracted by his story-telling....he tells 3 stories:
1. about the timing of the Cambrian explosion
2. Insects and flowers
3. Origins of Homo sapiens
Why is he telling you those stories? What's the bigger picture he's drawing for you?
What does his title mean?
In what ways is Gould's essay connected to other things we've read/watched/discussed for this class?
In my paper I specifically revert back to the title of his article. I think his title means that no matter how many evolution stories people come up with and how many facts and evidence there is, people are going to believe their evolution theories they believe in. Towards the end of the article, or even at the very end, he sarcastically connects Adam from the Christian creation story in the bible to Eve from Africa from the Out of Africa story, which I found was a very good ending for the title of this article.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, you can connect this with my background in art as well. The phrase beauty in the eye of the beholder is that sure not everyone thinks something is art, but if you think it is art, then believe it!
You can revert to his quote that said something along the lines of him joining the field of science because it is always evolving. One can never become complacent with science. It is true that some people believe their theory is true and static but others, such as Gould believes that no theory is static. He gives apposing arguments to all theories mentioned and gave evidence pointing to all the theories mentioned as well. He did have a personal bias supporting the theories that humans generated from a small population in Africa and that insects evolve independently though but everyone has their personal beliefs. He basically said he was confident in his views but wasn't arguing the correctness of them. He simply stated that everyone (including him) have a different way of thinking and these different ways of thinking can be combined to form a general conclusion. Gould aims to seek a difference in world views, or general models of reality.He seeks differences in views but also emphasizes the similarities..
DeleteI agree with your idea that title is a direct reference to the public's reactions that Gould describes in regards to the individual discoveries that were made. He shows us that what we choose to believe can have a heavy impact on how we interpret and respond to different situations. This carries over into the realm of science when scientists are challenged with the task of choose what to study and interpreting the findings that they produce.
DeleteGould's essay is connected in many ways to previous articles and chapters read in class. Content is one connection.Gould deals specifically with evolution. He shed light on the origins of humans. He concluded through evidence that the homo erectus arose from one place as a small population. Magazines and articles invariable present multi-regionalism but he believes that it is just the human tendency to want to be special that these ideas arose. If animals and insects generally radiated from a single small population why are humans so different? He concluded that the conclusions were insufficient. Like the philosophical breakfast club, he wanted to limit the barriers that falsely persuade students that science lies beyond their capabilities. With a false sense of incompatibility, students may have ideas that remain untapped. Gould assures that science is within anyone's reach. Unlike Edward J. Larson, the author of Evolution, he didn't just merely state facts and others ideas, he stated his personal opinion. He was confident in his opinions and even admitted a sense of self-congratulation. With his opinions he did include facts. Arguing his opinion on multi-regionalism he said that studies showed that there was almost no genetic variation which is a strong affirmation for recency of common ancestry in all humans. He backs up his opinions with studies. Not only does he back up his opinion but he provides some opposing arguments and gives summarized evidence of how those arguments came to be. This is like the arguments in the book 'Evolution'. He gives different view points and studies from Labandiera, Sepkoski, Browring, Rob Dorit, and Wally Gilbert.The studies he provided were diverse and concise. In conclusion. Gould aims to seek a difference in world views, or general models of reality.
ReplyDeleteThe title "In the Mind of the Beholder" explains Gould's main point behind this article. Although he tells stories that can distract us, reading the conclusion and then reading the article, can help clear things up. In the article itself, he talks about new ideas about evolution that seem to be surprising to people. He constantly points out new findings and other research that changes what is accepted of evolution. He also states in the beginning that peoples' bias will affect what they decide to believe. This is the reason for the article and the title "In the Mind of the Beholder." His stories and own self-gratitude are just distractions from the point he is trying to make in this article. There will always be new ideas and data for different theories, but ultimately, it is up to each person to decide what they believe in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the beginning of your post about having to read the conclusion of Gould's essay first before appreciating it fully. Without first reading how Gould pulls together his essay it is very hard to see the how Gould's haphazard essay structure actually comes together to form a strong well thought observation on how the mindset of an individual affects their ability to perceive information.
DeleteI also agree with you Tyler, that reading the conclusion of his article helps and makes it much easier to understand his article and without doing this it can be hard to see how those three very different stories all relate back to each other. Gould's title of the article explains his overall thesis, that subjectivity and worldview plays a role in how scientists interpret data.
DeleteGould tells three supposedly unconnected stories in this essay. One story is about the explosion of phyla that occurs during the Cambrian period of Earth's history. Another story is about the disproving of the theory that early insects evolved in a symbiotic relationship with early flowers. The last story is about the beginning of the human species. All three of these stories come from vastly different periods of time and therefore seem unrelated but its the parts the author includes following the stories that brings their connection into the light. After each of the stories the author tells of publications that portray these new discoveries as ground breaking and revolutionary. Proceeding the publications in the essay the author reveals to the reader that to him personally these supposedly revolutionary ideas are simply rational explanations that he could have come to himself. This is where the title of the essay comes into play, "In the Mind of the Beholder". The cryptic meaning behind this title lends itself to the greater picture that the author is portraying in this essay, that to some new ideas can be seemingly miraculous epiphanies while to others they are simple logical deductions based on evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job explaining this article Berk. It's very confusing trying to decide on a main point of this essay by Gould. It is only after reading the conclusion and then re-reading the whole article can someone start to vaguely see the purpose. The three stories are objectively different, and he is only using them to further prove his point that people have varying worldviews. If only he could have proved this point in a less confusing way.
DeleteThe title "In the mind of the beholder" demonstrates how science is subjective. We discussed in class how science is both objective and subjective, together they balance each other out. Basic understanding of science and theories need to be objective in order to explain the foundation of whatever is being studied. Once you reach a higher level, you are able to identify certain things and point out what is wrong, making the content subjective. The meaning behind, "in the mind of the beholder" demonstrates that evolution has occurred but there are many different interruptions of how things can be.
ReplyDeleteI like how you stated that basic science is objective and once we reach a higher level it becomes subjective; stating it like that allows you to flow right back to the title "in the mind of the beholder" with a title like that it doesn't suppress individuality and promotes creativity when it comes to science
DeleteGould's title, "In the Mind of the Beholder" is in my opinion a very powerful title for his article. Throughout Gould's writing he explains how the world is influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking each scientist apply to any problem they face. Gould states, "Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview", as he explains that it is destructiveness to openness. Gould explains that having a "fruitful worldview" is what is needed in order to make connections in science. The title explains that everyone will interpret and take information a little bit differently and build from that due to their own personal worldview, and biases.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason Gould told these three stories is because they're 3 major things that many people have different worldviews on, and also things that new evidence appears all the time for. Its constantly changing. So Gould's bigger picture is that for an individual to be a good scientist you must have a fruitful worldview. You must be willing to be open and listen to new things and evidence. you must NOT be stuck in your ways and think nothing else can be right. You have to be willing to change because change is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteGould's title, "In the Mind of the Beholder," is used help brief the audience about the use of imperfect or "human" intuitions in scientific discoveries. In his essay he basically says that if a scientist uses the evidence that was yielded during experimentation or information that was uncovered from research, the experimenter may guess or use hunches to formulate an explanation for their data. The conclusion formed through these methods may not always be right, but theories can always be challenged or added to by other scientists. These kinds of hypotheses can lead to other discoveries by others in that they can use the studies already performed as a foundation for their research.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the title "In the Mind of the Beholder" represents the point that Gould is trying to make that Worldviews and personal perceptions/preferences shape the natural course of science. Through the process of choosing what they personally are interested in and care about, scientists are more motivated to endure scientific struggles until their end results are discovered. I believe that Gould tells us the various stories in the packet in order to illustrate the lineage of astonishment that many in the general public experienced when these individual discoveries were released. Further I think that he uses these seemingly separate stories and the results that they bring to illustrate his own worldview and how it differed from that of the publics. Overall it expresses that the way a person thinks can have a heavy impact on what they choose to do, what they choose to believe, and how they respond to different situations.
ReplyDelete