>> Jim Foley wrote:
>
> Much as I like his writing, the general concensus now seems to be that
> Gould considerably oversold his case. A number of the "wierdo fossils"
> have since been fitted into some of the existing phyla, and one of them,
> Wiwaxia, is now in the same place Walcott put it in in 1911.
>
> So the truth lies somewhere between the Walcott and Gould viewpoints,
> and may, for all I know, end up closer to the Walcott end of the
> spectrum. I have a couple of posts saved which go into more detail,
> email me if you want them.
>> This misses the main theme of the post. Stephen Jay Gould
>> discusses the classification of specific Burgess Shale fossils
>> within the context of a larger issue he wishes to address:
>> The role of subjective interpretation in the scientific method.
I got the point. I posted partly to alert people to the fact that
Gould's opinions in "Wonderful Life" are no longer, if they ever were,
the concensus, and also because I consider it an example of Gould
falling prey to the problems of subjective interpretation that his book
and your post talked about.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765