I read the Hawke review while waiting around on jury duty. Among other things, he assumes that Adam Smith is the worst version, i.e., Milton Friedman dumped in a time machine and sent back to 1776. He ignores the pro-labor Adam Smith, for example. (Is it chapter 4 of the _Wealth of Nations_ where Smith argues for high wages? I don't have my copy here.)
Also, he interprets Adam Smith as totally "micrological," i.e., someone who reduces all macro phenomena to micro ones. The problem with this is that Smith also posited a macro-level natural order of sorts, one in which fellow-feeling protects property rights, enforces contracts, etc., so that the state doesn't have to be very oppressive, akin to Locke's "state of nature." (This is my interpretation of the conclusion of THE THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS.) In some ways, Smith advocated a version of "intelligent design," since the Invisible Hand was so akin to the Deity.
Anyway, according to Gould (at least according to what I've read), Darwin learned from Malthus more than from Smith.
The NATION made a mistake to assign the wrong person to review Gould's book (as far as I can tell, since I haven't read it myself).
Jim Devine (who wishes he could go to his office more often).
-----Original Message-----
From: Carrol Cox
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 5/31/2002 11:01 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:26474] [Fwd: Re: Query on Book Review]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Query on Book Review
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:22:30 -0400
From: Richard Levins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion
List<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes. I think Hawkes missed the boat in many ways. Ther first of which is
worrying about Thomas Kuhn's question: is this or is it not a new
paradigm? That will be settled later.Darwin's case did nt depend on the
exquisite adaptations of organisms but on the combination of obviously
beautifully adapted traits that reflect thei environment, and the
non-adaptive traits that reflect their descent(e.g. the floral
morphology
that separates plant families). The asteroid impact does not eliminate
natural selection: it was not a universal killer but rather changed the
context of selection over a period ofseveral million years. There is
nothing in Darwinism thatrequires predictable or constant environments.
Darwin's gradualism was a deficiency that reflected his Whiggish world
view. But it was not argued by Darwin, merely expressed as an opinion,
and
criticized by Marx and Huxley.And as for intelligent design, perhaps an
apprentice designer. But an omnipotent/omniscient one would not let
estrogen (with enough to do in reproduction) also affect bone density
and
produce osteoporosis after menopause.etc. Dick Levins
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Does anyone on this list have a comment on the review of Gould in the
> June 10 _Nation_ by David Hawkes?
>
> Carrol Cox
>
