Per her most recent book, and my take, my personal RIP for Jane Goodall is not unalloyed. She appeared to be descending into New Ageism and pseudoscience, sadly. She had a co-author in Gail Hudson for this and her previous 3 books, which may be part of it. But? It's still Goodall's name as the lead author. (This Douglas Abrams as third author is only a co-author on this one of Goodall's books.)
The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for Trying Times by Jane Goodall
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
Too New Agey and too based on logical fallacies for me.
I agree that developing hope and resilience are good. I think anecdotal stories can be a part of this. But, the background thoughts, the framing? Not for me.
On the former of the two things mentioned in the first paragraph? The "spark that's in everything" is where Goodall started losing me. Claiming trees communicate pretty much sealed the deal.
Reality? Trees don't even "communicate," re the example she used that's all the rage in non-critical-thinking biologists today. Rather, fungi on the roots of one tree "communicate" (and scare quotes needed, because they don't actually communicate, either) with the fungi on the roots of another tree. The two, or more, trees have nothing to do with directing, or "directing," this. They're just free riders.
The logical fallacy? Bullseye fallacy, file drawer fallacy, whatever you call it. For every person that survives horrifying child abuse, civil war, etc, at least one more doesn't. Not telling their stories, especially when you are presenting from a New Agey angle, can — even if not intended — guilt trip survivors into "why can't I be more hopeful?" Barbara Ehrenreich covered this perfectly on her book about cancer survival.
I wavered between two and three stars but ultimately went with two.
View all my reviews
I suspect that, had she written another book post-COVID, Goodall would have gone even further down the New Agey world, perhaps diving into things like traditional medicine next. Related? About three-fifths down her Wiki bio, she apparently believed, or semi-believed, in Bigfoot and other cryptids.
Apparently, this was nothing new. In "Reason for Hope," a pre-Hudson book, Wiki notes:
Goodall described the implications of a mystical experience she had at Notre Dame Cathedral in 1977: "Since I cannot believe that this was the result of chance, I have to admit anti-chance. And so I must believe in a guiding power in the universe – in other words, I must believe in God."[98] When asked if she believes in God, Goodall said in September 2010: "I don't have any idea of who or what God is. But I do believe in some great spiritual power. I feel it particularly when I'm out in nature. It's just something that's bigger and stronger than what I am or what anybody is. I feel it. And it's enough for me."[99] When asked in the same year if she still considers herself a Christian, Goodall told the Guardian "I suppose so; I was raised as a Christian." and stated that she saw no contradiction between evolution and belief in God.
Gack. Not on the theistic evolution part, but on overinterpreting the mystical experience part. I above mention Ehrenreich and her book about cancer survival. The problem is that Ehrenreich dived at least as deep into that same empty pool in her memoir, as I noted in detail.
Other problems? "Seeds of Hope," her second Hudson collaboration, had plagiarism issues. Beyond the issue of plagiarism is WHAT she plagiarized, which the Washington Post noted included an "amateurish astrology site."
She did a lot of good, so this isn't a full takedown obit. It is halfway one, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment