This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The infobox on the John Maynard Smith page has been removed. Please discuss arguments for or against removal to reach a consensus. To remind you what it looked like, here is a sample:
bunix 09:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dunc, I am interested to hear which things in particular are not implemented correctly. Please let us know and it can be fixed. No problem. Discussion on handedness is now at talk:J. B. S. Haldane. Best regards, bunix 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Really! John Maynard Smith never got a PhD. He was an undergrad at UCL with JBS Haldane, but if my memory is correct, then spent his war years in aircraft design. I think everyone, especially JMS, knew he was brilliant, so he simply didn't need a PhD, which was an American invention borrowed from Germany before the holocaust. Someone more clued up than me should research his biography more thoroughly, and let me know the title of his PhD dissertation/thesis. I don't think he did one at all. Eratosignis ( talk) 21:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Several of the awards he received required that the recipients (scientific) efforts contribute to the well-being of humanity. It would be nice if the article expounded on his philanthropy and contributions to humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 ( talk) 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand the famous biologist Ernst Mayr does not regard Richard Dawkins and Maynard Smith as a Darwinists. If this view has its reasons, it should be discussed. There is even a Wikipedia: Dawkins vs. Gould presenting the Book: Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest is a book by philosopher of biology Kim Sterelny about the differing views of biologists Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. The article about Maynard Smith should reflect the essentials of this debate. Cuauti ( talk) 21:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I attach the view of Ernst Mayr: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_index.html MAYR: Yet the funny thing is if in England, you ask a man in the street who the greatest living Darwinian is, he will say Richard Dawkins. And indeed, Dawkins has done a marvelous job of popularizing Darwinism. But Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian. I would not call him the greatest Darwinian. Not even Maynard Smith. Maynard Smith was raised in math and physics, and he was an airplane engineer in the last war. For the most part, he still thinks like a mathematician and engineer. His most successful contribution to evolutionary biology has been applying so-called game theory to evolution. Personally I have — and now I perhaps expose myself to a great deal of criticism, but regardless — I have always been a little unhappy about that application of game theory. What animal ever, in a confrontation, would say, now let me figure it out, would it be better to be timid or would it be better to be bold? That's not the way organisms think. You get — and somebody would have to work this out since I'm not a mathematician — exactly the same result if you have a population with every animal acting with a different mixture of timidity and boldness. Individuals at one end of the curve are very timid and have little boldness, individuals in the middle of the curve have an appropriate mixture of timidity and boldness, and individuals at the other end of the curve are very bold. Somewhere in between, in a given environment with a given set of enemies and competitors, is the best mixture of the two tendencies. You get the same results with game theory, but in my opinion, the better solution has a much more biological, Darwinian approach. Cuauti ( talk) 21:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
In case I (or someone else) feel like fixing up this article, here are some additional references:
Anyway, I'll be looking at giving this article proper treatment sometime in the future. I'm not sure when, though... – VisionHolder « talk » 08:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Maynardsmith.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Maynard Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
What basis is there for saying his name was double-barrelled? His father was Sidney Maynard Smith, but Sidney's father was one W H Smith. Socialambulator ( talk) 17:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)