Here is what Stephen Jay Gould had to say about punctuationism and dialectics in his book, *The Panda's Thumb.
There, in the essay "Episodic Evolutionary Change," he wrote: -------------------------- If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternate philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change - the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational. They speak, for example, of the "transformation of quantity into quality." This may sound like mumbo jumbo, but it suggests that change occurs in large leaps following a slow accumulation of stresses that a system resists until it reaches the breaking point. Heat water and it eventually boils. Oppress the workers more and more and bring on the revolution. Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many Russian paleontologists support a model very similar to our punctuated equilibria. I emphatically do not assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctuational change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a grandiose notion would border on the nonsensical. Gradualism sometimes works well. (I often fly over the folded Appalachians and marvel at the striking parallel ridges left standing by gradual erosion of the softer rocks surrounding them). I make a simple plea for pluralism in guiding philosophies, and for the recognition of such philosophies, however hidden and unarticulated, constrain all our thought. The dialectical laws express an ideology quite openly; our Western preference for gradualism does the same more subtly. Nonetheless, I will confess to a personal belief that a punctuational view may prove to map tempos of biological and geologic change more accurately and more often than any of its competitors - if only because complex systems in steady state are both common and highly resistant to change. ----------------------------- I think a careful reading of Gould's words will indicate that he viewed dialectics as a heuristic for generating hypotheses concerning the behavior of complex systems. Note that he considered what he called the punctuational view to be a "constraining prejudice" - what sciece historian, Gerald Holton, (about whom Gould had written favorably in the NY Review of Books) would call a 'themata.' Note also that Gould talked about expanding our range of "constraining prejudices" rather than dogmatically insisting upon the need to replace gradualism by punctuationalism. Gould recognized that such views are not ultimately true or false but only more or less useful in helping us to formulate new testable hypotheses. Jim F. On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:44:12 -0500 "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Marxism-Thaxis] OudeyisHegel, > > Marx, and, for that matter, Jay Gould (he and Dan Dennett - the > American reductionist philosopher - fought over this issue) did not > regard > development to be incremental or continuous. The dialectic, the > successive > emergence of negations of previous conditions suggests that > development hops > and jumps rather than grows by inches. The principle of Quantity is > also > not a case of incremental change. You can think of it as a teapot > on the > burner or the apparent lull before a sudden popular rising; the > conditions > conducive to a boiling pot or a popular uprising cook slowly without > any > apparent sign of dramatic change until a critical state is reached > and then, > things happen very suddenly indeed. The concept of Quantity for > Engels and > Marx as for Hegel refers to the sudden change of state rather than > to the > accumulation of conditions that engenders it. > The issue really is the essentialism that Marx and Engels adopted > from > Hegel. The significant fact of the sudden boil of the teapot and > the > popular uprising is the end product of the process that generates > them and > not the conditions. After all, a teapot on a low fire is just a > teapot on a > low fire and a long, hot Summer is just a long, hot, Summer; they > both only > become interesting when they result respectively in a pot of boiling > water > and an uprising of an angry community. > Victor > > ^^^^^ > > > CB: My understanding of this is that there is a long period of > exactly > continuous or incremental change that is suddenly altered by the > leap, the > quantum leap or qualitative change. Dialectics doesn't deny > continous or > incremental change, rather it relates the two types of change, > quantitative > and qualitative. > > The temperature of the water is continously increasing, but the > surface is > not bubbling. At 212 degrees farenheit , continuous, gradual change > leaps > into bubbles burst on the surface, a qualitative change in the > surface of > the water. This is quantitative change turning into qualititive > change or > continuous change turning into discontinuous change. > > Quantity turning into quality is a change in the type of change; it > is > quantitative _change_ turning into qualitative _change_. > > Evolution punctuated by revolution is another way of saying > quantitative > change turns into qualitative change. > > Socially, the ebb and flow of reform is evolutionary. It is change > without > changing the mode of production out of capitalism. Socialist > revolution is a > leap in which the mode of production changes. > > Darwin was an evolutionist, precisely speaking. He thought all > change was > gradual. He didn't posit revolutions. Lenin predicted that Darwin's > gradualist model would be replaced by one with leaps. Punctuated > equilibrium > is exactly that replacement. Speciation occurs in the leaps after > long > periods of "circular" motion in the , equilibrium, in the forms > _within_ a > species. "Equilibrium" doesn't mean no change, just changes that > stay > within the species. > > Gradual, quantitative or circular changes last for a longer period > of time > than the leaps. Leaps are relatively rare compared to gradual > changes. In > other words, the "suddenness" of the leap or hop you mention is > _relative_ > to the slowness of the continous change. The leap change and > continous > change have to be related ( as a unity and struggle of opposites). > > The dialectic of quantity and quality impinges in that essentially > "quantitative" process , counting. To count counting or whole > numbers seems > inherently gradual and continuous at first. But when we establish > the real > numbers, then counting the counting numbers involves leaps over an > infinite > number of numbers just to go from one (1) to two (2). And then > there is > transformation (back) from qualitative change to quantitative > change, as the > leaps become regular, and 1,2,3,4, 5, 6... can be considered a > continous > series of numbers. > > Charles > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
