RE: Re: gould dies at 60
Michael Perelman writes: Stephen Gould's is a great loss. He seems to have been an exceptional person in many ways. He certainly has enriched my understanding of economic processes, especially with his theory of the punctuated equilibrium. I loved Gould's work, especially his MISMEASURE OF MAN, a needed critique of IQ tests and the like. But I think though the theory of punctuated equilibrium is an important contribution to evolutionary theory, it isn't that important to economics. In economics, it's suspiciously akin to the standard idea of comparative statics. (BTW, there was an article in SCIENCE SOCIETY a few years ago, likening Gould's method to that of Marx.) By coincidence, on Sunday I saw Charles Darwin: Live and in Concert, an amusing and informative one-man show done by Richard Milner, senior editor of NATURAL HISTORY magazine (cf. http://www.nhm.org/whatsnew/lectures/darwin.html) at the L.A. Museum of Natural History. As part of his show, he had a song about Gould, a school friend of his. We bought Milner's book and CD and had them autograph. Said I: you're a ham -- like your friend Stephen J. Gould. Said he: unfortunately, he's dying of cancer. Alas. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: gould dies at 60
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] I loved Gould's work, especially his MISMEASURE OF MAN, a needed critique of IQ tests and the like. But I think though the theory of punctuated equilibrium is an important contribution to evolutionary theory, it isn't that important to economics. In economics, it's suspiciously akin to the standard idea of comparative statics. (BTW, there was an article in SCIENCE SOCIETY a few years ago, likening Gould's method to that of Marx.) To study the temporal dynamics of organisms and ecosystems [heterochrony] is to flirt with insanity. To be anthropomorphic, evolution is not interested in equilibrium or stasis. Ian
Re: Re: gould dies at 60
In a message dated 5/21/02 9:04:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Gould's is a great loss. He seems to have been an exceptional person in many ways. He certainly has enriched my understanding of economic processes, especially with his theory of the punctuated equilibrium. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 This comment puzzles me! Gould was indeed a national treasure in many ways. Overall he played a tremendously positive role in bringing the sometimes subtle ideas of modern evolutionary theory to a broader public. And he must certainly be honored for his leading role in combatting the creationists of the religious right. But it is also true that Gould himself had some weaknesses. Especially in recent years he seemed to lean toward compromising with religion, or accomodating science to religion. This was sad to see. He was famous for bringing every topic under the sun into his long series of columns in Natural History. On the one hand this showed the breadth of his knowledge and erudition. On the other hand, it sometimes meant that he talked about things in an authoritative way that he really hadn't thought through himself. One example that used to annoy me greatly was his occasional naive comments about ethics and morality, such as putting forward the Golden Rule as the essence of the matter. Although he was brought up in a Marxist family he failed to grasp the very basic Marxist point of view that both political ideas--and ALSO morality--are at bottom a matter of ideologized class interests. The theory of punctuated equilibria in evolution, which was the joint product of Gould and Niles Eldridge, is indeed important, and is certainly quite true. Sometimes people do present it in too absolute a way, however, when they say or imply that there is NO gradual change and ONLY sudden punctuations. (Dialectically, the two interpenetrate.) An interesting thing about this theory of punk-e, however, and one which Gould himself sometimes acknowledged, is that it is really only the application of a long-established more general principle of Marxist dialectics to the field of evolution. That is, Marxists going back to Marx and Engels themselves, have traditionally held that major change takes place through qualitative leaps. (Thus water after it is heated up gradually, suddenly begins to boil. And even when you look at gradual change itself on a close enough scale you will see that it is ALSO made up of numerous small dialectical leaps--such as when water molecules suddenly acquire a surge in energy by contact with the tea kettle or other hotter water molecules. This however does not mean that there IS no such thing as gradual change--only that it changes our understanding of what gradual change really amounts to in the final analysis.) (For further discussion of this aspect of the dialectics of change, see the last couple sections of chapter 31 of my book on the mass line at: http://members.aol.com/TheMassLine/MLch31.htm ) Since it was Marxist philosophy that very likely gave rise to the original germ of the idea behind the theory of punctuated equilibria in the first place, I find it somewhat ironic that Michael should say that this theory should have in turn influenced him and others in the area of political economy. The question in my mind is why didn't Marxist philosophy have a more DIRECT influence here? I don't want to go too far with this, because for one thing Michael just made an off-hand comment here, and for another thing I have not even read much of Michael's books (although I am working on one of them, Marx's Crises Theory). I do not fully understand his thought processes and where he is coming from, let alone those of all the other contributors to this mail group. And I know I have much to learn from all of you. But Marx was first a philosopher, and I am certain that his philosophical outlook infused and and helped form his economic theories--as well as his method of presentation of those theories. I doubt if people can deeply understand Marx's political economy unless they also have a pretty good grasp of his philosophical standpoint and method. (Lenin and others have also emphasized this point.) And I suspect that many radical economists are pretty weak when it comes to understanding and utilizing Marxist dialectics. Just some thoughts... --Scott Harrison
Re: Re: Re: gould dies at 60
Let me rephrase Scott's question crudely: if Marx developed punctuated equilibrium on his own and Gould was influenced by Marx, why would I possibly need Gould to help me understand punctuated equilibrium? This question makes me think of the difficulty that I sometimes encounter -- sort of a methodological transformation problem. Sometimes I read Marxist literature; sometimes bourgeois economics. I do not always manage to integrate the two worlds. I think that Gould was exceedingly helpful in getting me to do that better. Incidentally, Russell Jacoby visited Chico couple of weeks ago. In decrying the absence of public intellectuals, he mentioned that the one area where academics succeeded in communicating with the broader population was science writing. He mentioned Gould in particular. Why are we so bad that doing that in economics. Some years ago, Arthur Diamond a computer program that supposedly diagnoses clarity of writing to analyze the Richard T. Ely lectures. He showed a markedly downward trend. Friedman can write clearly; so can John Kenneth Galbraith. Brad de Long and Krugman are good communicators. Are other disciplines more successful than economics? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find it somewhat ironic that Michael should say that this theory should have in turn influenced him and others in the area of political economy. The question in my mind is why didn't Marxist philosophy have a more DIRECT influence here? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: gould dies at 60
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 May 2002 18:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26130] Re: Re: gould dies at 60 (Thus water after it is heated up gradually, suddenly begins to boil. If you're going to show this book to people who are of a pedantic disposition, you might want to find a different example. This isn't true of water, which gradually approaches boiling point along its boiling curve. Boiling is the limit of a process whereby the heat lost from evaporation increases as a liquid is heated; it's the point on the boiling curve at which the heat loss from evaporation exceeds the heat applied, if I remember O-level physics right. The freezing of water as it is gradually cooled is much more like the discontinuous process you want; supercritical liquids can freeze all in an instant. But liquids come to the boil gradually. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
