[Ruse] has put his knowledge to good use to say some fascinating things about the relative roles of culture and hard fact in the history of evolution and its mechanisms...To anyone interested in the evolution of evolution, I recommend this book. It is written with clarity and grace, and both the professional and the layperson will find it full of riches.
Natural History - John Tyler Bonner
When biology meets philosophy in the Mystery of Mysteries , readers from both fields will be satisfied. Ruse compares his book with a detective story and it is indeed as gripping...[This] book provides a milestone in the philosophy of biology.
New Genetics and Society - Doris Schroeder
In one hundred years science historians may identify the past half century as the age of the 'science wars'—with armies on one side marshalling their defense of science as an objective enterprise, against the forces on the other claiming science is socially constructed. Michael Ruse's Mystery of Mysteries will be identified as a watershed in the science wars debate, as he navigates the treacherous waters between extremists on both sides and shows us how to find an intelligent middle route. To find out how science can be both the product of fallible, biased, culture-bound scientists, and a self-correcting method that unveils real facts about reality, read this compelling work by one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking minds of our age.
Which values drive scientific knowledge? Are they epistemic values (objectivity, reproducibility, predictive strength, empirical fruitfulness)? Or cultural values (religion, belief in progress, egalitarianism, militarism)? 'Scientists' involved in the culture wars say epistemic; 'sociologists' say cultural. Ruse detects a false dilemma...He argues that epistemic values inform all science that survives...[but] the cultural values of important scientists can be seen in the work they choose to do...In Mystery of Mysteries we have a fine presentation of the Highlights of Evolutionary Thought.
National Review - Paul Gross
The title of Michael Ruse's book—Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction? —suggests a rather ambitious undertaking, and on that score readers are certainly not disappointed...[It] is an entertaining and knowledgeable...survey of evolutionary thought...[and] provides a starting point for those who want to know what the science wars are all about.
Chemical & Engineering News - Jay A. Labinger
Michael Ruse is a Canadian philosopher of science with a sharp but good-natured wit, and an inclination to pursue controversial topics related to evolution...Mr. Ruse is at his scholarly best [in this book], exploring thoughtfully the role of ideological and epistemic values in evolutionary science.
Washington Times - Phillip Johnson
Ruse proposes to investigate the history of evolutionary biology from the late 18th century to the present to determine the influence of various factors in deciding the course of this scientific discipline...Because evolutionary theory has been one of the chief battlefields in the war between constructivists and positivists, Ruse could not have picked a more appropriate topic of study...The readers of Ruse's spirited and ambitious book get to enjoy one more salvo in the science wars.
Mystery of Mysteries is both extensively researched and informative, especially in regard to the work and backgrounds of noteworthy Darwinists.
Philosophia Christi - Steve Dilley
Mystery of Mysteries is vintage Michael Ruse. First-hand knowledge of the science and the scientists, incisive historical and philosophical analysis, fluid prose, focus on an important subject. The issue is the objectivity and realism of scientific knowledge, but readers will learn much about evolution and evolutionists.
Ruse concludes that the ratio of culture to 'epistemic science,' as he calls the hard, objective stuff of proper research, has gradually reversed in favor of science, as molecular biology and other experiment-based methods of testing evolutionary theory's predictions have developed...[The book] is enlivened by Ruses's historical profiles of ten leading evolutionists, from Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwins grandfather) through Charles Darwin, Julian Huxley, and E. O. Wilson.
[Ruse's] evenhandedness, coupled with an engaging, jargon-free writing style, makes Mystery of Mysteries a good book for nonscientists who want to know more about evolution and the nature of science.
Christian Century - Kathleen L. Housley
In addition to criticism of several generations of leading evolutionary scientists, Ruse offers a vital clarification of what is at issue in the 'science wars,' noting that the 'reality' Popperian (and perhaps most) scientists seek to understand is reality versus illusion, rather than a definitive answer to the ancient philosophical question of realism versus nonrealism.
Is evolution true? Or is it an arbitrary human invention, influenced by fashion, a handy way of organizing experience, but ultimately having no more claim to truth than biblical literalism or the latest offering of the postmodern deconstructionists? Ruse takes us through the history of evolutionary theory, and shows us how at every turn its development was influenced by culture and personality...We may never know ultimate reality, he states, but we can know when one way of organizing our experience is better than another. The history of evolutionary thought demonstrates...that] Darwinism is without a credible rival. [And] guess what? I found the book in an airport bookstore, of all places, right there next to The Seven Steps to Health, Wealth and a Slim Figure.
Boston Globe - Chet Raymo
Building on his previous studies, philosopher Michael Ruse, analyzes key factors shaping the science of representative evolutionary thinkers in the last 250 years...The book raises important questions and offers significant insight of further deliberations.
Red River Valley Historical Journal - Sylvia W. McGrath
Ruse is trying to do several hard things in this smaller book. He wants to cool the sectarian heat of the science wars enough to tackle what he regards as philosophically serious issues underlying the debate. And he aims to do so in a way accessible to the general reader. He succeeds pretty well on both counts...Ruse's consistently good-humoured book is a fine example for anyone who wants to approach the science wars constructively. And it gets pretty close to persuading the sceptical reader that popular epistemology might be a viable enterprise.
Times Higher Education Supplement - Jon Turney
[Ruse's] writing style stands midway between highly accessible science journalism and erudite, closely argued philosophy. Here he explores the question of whether evolutionary biology is socially constructed (Thomas Kuhn) or an approximation of reality (Karl Popper). He answers 'yes' on both counts by delving into the biographies of the main spokesmen for evolutionary biology: Darwin, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, Wilson, Parker, and Sepkoski. First of all, the book is valuable for its biographical content alone, as historical works of this magnitude are rare within the genre. Moreover, this contructivist-realist debate in the philosophy of science is often overly simplified by science journalists and overly complicated by erudite philosophers. Ruse, however, has written an important historical and philosophical book equally accessible to scholars, college students, and popular audiences. An outstanding contribution to the history and philosophy of evolution and highly recommended reading for scholars, college students, popular audiences, and local school boards interested in learning how science really works.
Ruse sets out to answer [questions in the science wars], to salvage what is reasonable from the claims of both constructivists and realists, and to find a via media between the two. His methodology consists of examining the role of cultural versus epistemic values in the work of ten prominent evolutionists to discover what role cultural values play for each, and whether there is a set or body of norms, values or constraints that guide scientists in their theorizing and observing...Ruse's trek through 250 years of evolutionary biology yields another interesting finding: as a science matures and becomes more professionalized, epistemic values internal to the discipline become more explicit, more important and more thoroughly satisfied, whereas cultural values, although never completely absent, become relatively less significant.
Thoughtful readers will doubtless differ as to which view of science—objective reality or social construct—'wins' the debate addressed in this book. Nonetheless, by what strikes me as a clever and effective device of 'pairing' a dozen or so distinguished people, Ruse gives the reader a well-written and thought-provoking analysis of opposing points of view. For each member of a given pair—for example, Richard Lewontin and Edward O. Wilson—he gives something of the personality and background of the individual and a summary of research interests and accomplishments, with emphasis on the individual's views on the issue at stake.
Is evolution true? Or is it an arbitrary human invention, influenced by fashion, a handy way of organizing experience, but ultimately having no more claim to truth than biblical literalism or the latest offering of the postmodern deconstructionists? Ruse takes us through the history of evolutionary theory, and shows us how at every turn its development was influenced by culture and personality...We may never know ultimate reality, he states, but we can know when one way of organizing our experience is better than another. The history of evolutionary thought demonstrates...that] Darwinism is without a credible rival. [And] guess what? I found the book in an airport bookstore, of all places, right there next to The Seven Steps to Health, Wealth and a Slim Figure.
Mystery of Mysteries is both extensively researched and informative, especially in regard to the work and backgrounds of noteworthy Darwinists.
Building on his previous studies, philosopher Michael Ruse, analyzes key factors shaping the science of representative evolutionary thinkers in the last 250
Red River Valley Historical Journal
When biology meets philosophy in the Mystery of Mysteries , readers from both fields will be satisfied. Ruse compares his book with a detective story and it is indeed as gripping...[This] book provides a milestone in the philosophy of biology.
[Ruse's] writing style stands midway between highly accessible science journalism and erudite, closely argued philosophy. Here he explores the question of whether evolutionary biology is socially constructed (Thomas Kuhn) or an approximation of reality (Karl Popper). He answers 'yes' on both counts by delving into the biographies of the main spokesmen for evolutionary biology: Darwin, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, Wilson, Parker, and Sepkoski. First of all, the book is valuable for its biographical content alone, as historical works of this magnitude are rare within the genre. Moreover, this contructivist-realist debate in the philosophy of science is often overly simplified by science journalists and overly complicated by erudite philosophers. Ruse, however, has written an important historical and philosophical book equally accessible to scholars, college students, and popular audiences. An outstanding contribution to the history and philosophy of evolution and highly recommended reading for scholars, college students, popular audiences, and local school boards interested in learning how science really works.
In addition to criticism of several generations of leading evolutionary scientists, Ruse offers a vital clarification of what is at issue in the 'science wars,' noting that the 'reality' Popperian (and perhaps most) scientists seek to understand is reality versus illusion, rather than a definitive answer to the ancient philosophical question of realism versus nonrealism.
Ruse sets out to answer [questions in the science wars], to salvage what is reasonable from the claims of both constructivists and realists, and to find a via media between the two. His methodology consists of examining the role of cultural versus epistemic values in the work of ten prominent evolutionists to discover what role cultural values play for each, and whether there is a set or body of norms, values or constraints that guide scientists in their theorizing and observing...Ruse's trek through 250 years of evolutionary biology yields another interesting finding: as a science matures and becomes more professionalized, epistemic values internal to the discipline become more explicit, more important and more thoroughly satisfied, whereas cultural values, although never completely absent, become relatively less significant.
The title of Michael Ruse's book—Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction? —suggests a rather ambitious undertaking, and on that score readers are certainly not disappointed...[It] is an entertaining and knowledgeable...survey of evolutionary thought...[and] provides a starting point for those who want to know what the science wars are all about.
Chemical & Engineering News
[Ruse's] evenhandedness, coupled with an engaging, jargon-free writing style, makes Mystery of Mysteries a good book for nonscientists who want to know more about evolution and the nature of science.
[Ruse] has put his knowledge to good use to say some fascinating things about the relative roles of culture and hard fact in the history of evolution and its mechanisms...To anyone interested in the evolution of evolution, I recommend this book. It is written with clarity and grace, and both the professional and the layperson will find it full of riches.
Ruse is trying to do several hard things in this smaller book. He wants to cool the sectarian heat of the science wars enough to tackle what he regards as philosophically serious issues underlying the debate. And he aims to do so in a way accessible to the general reader. He succeeds pretty well on both counts...Ruse's consistently good-humoured book is a fine example for anyone who wants to approach the science wars constructively. And it gets pretty close to persuading the sceptical reader that popular epistemology might be a viable enterprise.
Times Higher Education Supplement
Which values drive scientific knowledge? Are they epistemic values (objectivity, reproducibility, predictive strength, empirical fruitfulness)? Or cultural values (religion, belief in progress, egalitarianism, militarism)? 'Scientists' involved in the culture wars say epistemic; 'sociologists' say cultural. Ruse detects a false dilemma...He argues that epistemic values inform all science that survives...[but] the cultural values of important scientists can be seen in the work they choose to do...In Mystery of Mysteries we have a fine presentation of the Highlights of Evolutionary Thought.
Ruse proposes to investigate the history of evolutionary biology from the late 18th century to the present to determine the influence of various factors in deciding the course of this scientific discipline...Because evolutionary theory has been one of the chief battlefields in the war between constructivists and positivists, Ruse could not have picked a more appropriate topic of study...The readers of Ruse's spirited and ambitious book get to enjoy one more salvo in the science wars.
Michael Ruse is a Canadian philosopher of science with a sharp but good-natured wit, and an inclination to pursue controversial topics related to evolution...Mr. Ruse is at his scholarly best [in this book], exploring thoughtfully the role of ideological and epistemic values in evolutionary science.
...[A] mission of peace to the belligerents....Ruse fails as a peacemaker...[but] we must at least listen respectfully to people who cry out in behalf of peace....in we have a fine presentation of the highlights of Evolutionary Thought... —National Review
In a signal contribution to the debate about the nature of science, Ruse, a professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, tackles a central question: Is science a report on objective reality with special standards of truth finding, as Austrian-born philosopher Karl Popper maintains, or is it a culturally bound enterprise, a sequence of paradigms that subjectively mirror our ever-shifting view of the world, as American physicist Thomas Kuhn insists? Ruse's intriguing answer, likely to satisfy no one fully, is that both Popper and Kuhn are correct. He uses evolutionary biology as a case study, starting with physician-poet Erasmus Darwin, a deist who regarded evolution as set in motion by a remote, nonintervening God, then moves on to grandson Charles Darwin, whose theories, according to Ruse, strongly reflected Victorian attitudes about progress, gender, race and capitalism, as well as Malthus's notion of the "struggle for existence." In a handsome, scholarly probe, Ruse argues that Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) advances a "secular theology" rooted in 18th-century laissez-faire capitalism's belief that things work best when everybody is following his or her self-interest. Harvard sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, in Ruse's view, replaced the religious fundamentalism of a Southern Baptist childhood with an ardent faith in what Wilson calls "the evolutionary epic," neo-Darwinism as a fertile "myth." And paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's hotly contested theory of "punctuated equilibrium" owes a debt to Marxism (Gould's father was a Marxist) and to German idealism, in Ruse's analysis. Ruse's ultimate verdict: science remains embedded in cultural values, even as it improves its quest for objective knowledge. (Apr.)
Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly
As its subtitle indicates, this book was prompted in part by the debate between the physicist Alan Sokal (Fashionable Nonsense, LJ 11/1/98) and post-modernist sociologists over whether science is mainly discovered or invented (constructed). Rather than another frontal attack on the post-modernists (although the Sokal debate is discussed at length in the prolog), this book is, instead, a thoughtful and fascinating survey of the many ways in which social concepts have affected evolutionary theory. Beginning with Erasmus Darwin, Darwin's grandfather, Ruse (Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology, LJ 11/15/96) provides a brilliant analysis of how ideas like progress and metaphors based on political and cultural theories and values have both helped and hindered the maturation of evolutionary theory into a true science. Most of the middle to late 20th-century scientists Russ deals with (including Stephen Jay Gould and E.O. Wilson) seem to have overcome their cultural biases and have produced relatively culture-free, or at least culture-independent, science. Nevertheless, the ways in which cultural metaphors continue to enrich their writings provides a fascinating study in the difficulty of producing truly epistemic (Ruse's term) evolutionary theory, free of any significant contamination by the value systems in which its developers are immersed. This is a thoroughly absorbing and important overview by an interesting and controversial philosopher. For academic and larger public libraries.--Lloyd Davidson, Seeley G. Mudd Lib. for Science & Engineering, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL
Ruse (philosophy and zoology, U. of Guelph, Ontario) takes evolutionary theory as a case study to investigate the relative merits of Karl Popper's view of science as an objective, disinterested reflection of reality, or Thomas Kuhn's that it is a subjective social construction. He begins with Charles Darwin's grandfather and ends with recent findings. Identifying strengths and weaknesses in both positions, he demonstrates that a resolution is possible. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)
Ruse is that rarity, a professor of two subjects, holding chairs in philosophy and zoological at the University of Guelph in Ontario. Here he is mostly the philosopher, examining a deep question: "Does science obey certain disinterested norms or rules, designed or guaranteed to tell us something about the real world, or is it a reflection of personal preference, the things in culture that people hold dear? " He frames the debate in terms of Karl Popper's view of science as objective and Thomas Kuhn's assertion that it has a large subjective element. Then he examines the question by way of 10 chapters on the history of evolutionary theory from the middle of the 18th century to the end of the 20th, as put forward by 10 scientists, beginning with Erasmus Darwin and ending with paleontologistJ. John Sepkoski, Jr. of the University of Chicago.
[Ruse] has put his knowledge to good use to say some fascinating things about the relativeroles of culture and hard fact in the history of evolution and its mechanisms...To anyone interested in the evolution of evolution, I recommend this book. It is written with clarity and grace, and both the profesional and the layperson will find it full of riches.Natural History
Ruse (Philosophy and Zoology/University of Guelf, Canada) poses a trendy question: Is evolution (indeed, is all science) a social construct, i.e., relative, subjective? Is it steeped in cultural values? If nothing else, readers are treated to lively profiles that pair the work and thoughts of Erasmus and Charles Darwin; Julian Huxley and Theodosius Dobzhansky; Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins; Richard Lewontin and Edward O. Wilson, and finally, the English sociobiologist Geoffrey Parker and the American Jack Sepkoski. Ruse weighs the contributions of each scientist on the scale of Popper (is there a belief in an objective real world out there that the science is approaching through hypotheses which are falsifiable?) vs. Kuhn (is the scientist engaged in science that is part of the group consensus, or is there a paradigm shift?). In parsing the work, Ruse comments on "epistemic" values-is the work coherent, consistent, with predictive validity, is it fertile in opening up new questions to research? Or is it nonepistemic-are there cultural (e.g., political, psychosocial) factors at work? Lest there be any angst, rest assured that Ruse concludes that there is objectivity in science-but there are also cultural factors at work; for instance, scientists may be religious or atheists. On the whole, Ruse emerges as a progressionist, in the sense that science has become more sophisticated, adhering to stricter rules of logic and evidence and eschewing speculations except in popular articles. All the same, one cannot avoid seeing selectivity and bias in Ruse himself: He is particularly hard on Gould. Lewontin, on the other hand, is given worshipful treatment in spite of his well-knownuse of Marxist dialectics even in his theoretical writing. And is there a bit of the white Western male fraternity in perpetuity here? Perhaps. In the end, Ruse's conclusions are sound enough. But expect some of his methods to be questioned and some of his subjects begging to differ.
