> I am about fifty pages in Christine Kenneally's The First Word...
> The critique that CK isn't `real' science is
> wrong. She works roughly in the Scientific American level. What she
> presents is a survey of current arguments and background, something
> like Gould used to do in his writing.
This sells Gould short. He made some real original contributions to his field. Kenneally comes in at the low end of the Scientific American range -- say the Douglas Hofstadter level. If that.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org