« Still more on science and ideology | Main | Learning from self-experimentation »
March 15, 2005
Don't waste your time reading this one
One of the major figures in Segerstrale's book is John Maynard Smith, who she refers to as "Maynard Smith." Shouldn't it be just "Smith"? Perhaps it's a British thing? When reading about 20th century English history, I always wondered why David Lloyd George was called "Lloyd George" rather than simply "George," but I figured that was just to avoid confusing him with the king of that name.
Posted by Andrew at March 15, 2005 8:39 PM
Comments
Posted by: rakehell at March 14, 2005 9:42 PM.
In evolutionary biology or behavioral ecology, not knowing that his last name was "Maynard Smith" was a pretty strong predictor that the author didn't know the literature and didn't know the theory behind his or her work, and thus the paper wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. That especially held from the late 1970s through the 1990s, but may be less true today. Itdoesn't hold for other fields, so this isn't a criticism of you (especially since I came across this trying to track down your small area estimation for radon work).
Posted by: tom at March 18, 2005 1:06 PM.
Yep, his surname is "Maynard Smith", which is confusing because the great economist's surname was just "Keynes" (his friends referred to him as "Maynard"). And, yes, he is revered as the pioneer in applying game theory to evolutionary biology, and is a very clear writer to boot. Worth making time to read.
Also the PM's surname was "Lloyd George" too (his friends - such as they were - called him "David").
As rakehell said, a Brit eccentricity.
Posted by: derrida derider at April 18, 2005 2:21 AM.
"As rakehell said, a Brit eccentricity."
Ahem! Or perhaps a yank eccentricity to use two given names without hyphenating them?:-)
Posted by: Soph Collins at July 27, 2005 1:53 PM.