Comments on: Darwin’s rhetorical strategy

By: The once and future university « Jon Udell

The once and future university « Jon Udell — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:13:38 +0000

[...] reinforces the point. Seeing it reminds me of a telling episode this past April. I was writing about Darwin and I recalled something I’d heard in a biology lecture I’d heard the previous spring [...]

By: Darwin’s rhetorical strategy » SHARING IDEA WEBLOG

Darwin’s rhetorical strategy » SHARING IDEA WEBLOG — Sat, 05 May 2007 14:21:48 +0000

[...] post by Jon Udell and software by Elliott Back « mobile movement | Lost Enterprise » [...]

By: mikelove

mikelove — Wed, 02 May 2007 22:15:39 +0000

If you read any of Plato’s dialogues they sound the same way.

By: Mike Schinkel

Mike Schinkel — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:09:41 +0000

Interesting article; I feel certain I’ll be trying that technique in the near future thanks to your analysis.

Jon >> I believe there are world-changing ideas in the air,

So what are some of those world-changing ideas that you see at the moment?

By: business|bytes|genes|molecules

business|bytes|genes|molecules — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:52:16 +0000

[...] interesting take on Darwin from an unlikely [...]

By: Gavin.B

Gavin.B — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:02:14 +0000

I don’t know about the passing of years but, for better or worse, the Dawkin book the Selfish Meme took the same approach – first build a “public understanding” then stake your claim. Perhaps he inherited the method from his predecessor…?

By: Paul Martin

Paul Martin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:05:16 +0000

As Chris points out, the ideas are still not fully accepted. That might be because they do not make a critical difference in how you conduct your day-to-day life.

Interesting observation. Given the right focus on real human needs, that’s something we could get right.

I had an interesting conversation with my brother last night. I showed him a web site (bikely.com) which allows him to look up cycling routes all over the country. You should have heard his enthusiasm. He doesn’t know anything about mashups, APIs or Web 2.0, but he saw a tool he could use to find bike routes for his next trip, and he was hooked.

By: Bud Gibson

Bud Gibson — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:10 +0000

I thought Antonio’s comments were enlightening. Innovation is often an experience of rejection. Darwin succeeded, at least in getting his ideas heard, because he persisted in the face of rejection.

As Chris points out, the ideas are still not fully accepted. That might be because they do not make a critical difference in how you conduct your day-to-day life.

By: Kartik Agaram

Kartik Agaram — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:52:42 +0000

Darwin did have one advantage, though: he lived in an era where there was less competition for people’s attention. Depending on one’s perspective, either we don’t yet know what the key ideas we want to communicate are, or there is so much to communicate that a lot of it will not make it out.

By: Chris Ryland

Chris Ryland — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:40:46 +0000

Except that Darwin made that daring leap from the obvious facts of micro-evolution (change within species) to the incredible assumption that the same principles must apply to general evolution.

You don’t have to be a Creationist to realize that his general theory is in serious trouble these days even among serious scientists. It’s just that it’s so politically incorrect to admit a disbelief in Darwinan evolution that you don’t hear much about it in the general press.

By: Antonio

Antonio — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:53:38 +0000

Actually, I don’t think it took thirty years to frame his theory in a way that was acceptable. Darwin was painfully aware of the resistance his ideas were bound to encounter, being so clearly against the Biblical account according to the then dominant interpretation. It took one letter from Wallace sharing his discoveries with Darwin — he knew he was about to be scooped. At that point he was forced to publish. Eventually their findings were presented simultaneously but Wallace ended up in the oblivion bin of science history. Nonetheless, I agree the “Origin” is a wonderful example of science writing, maybe the last great book that addresses both the expert and the lay person at the same time. Its example is probably most relevant for highly controversial subjects like stem cell research and evolution. Did I say “evolution”? Because despite that great book, evolution is still controversial for the majority of Americans (but not, for instance, Icelanders http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060810_evo_rank.html).

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:01:04 +0000

Jon – fascinating conjunction of two worlds, thanks. I guess the *really* interesting question is: what are the “key pillars” people recognise when using “world-changing technology”? Search, shopping, mail, teenagers making connections, maybe music – and then, what? I’m very struck by a close friend of mine who memorably said “the Internet is for geeks” in 1999 and now has a fully-loaded iPod, books all his holidays online – but still doesn’t check his email. He doesn’t see the point. The problem with a lot of the Web 2.0 type stuff I see out there is it’s tech for tech’s sake. It doesn’t fulfil a human need. It doesn’t talk to those “key pillars.” Hmmm. Rather rambling comment, I’m afraid.