I know that this is a very annoying thing to do, but since several people have been kind enough to compliment my article in JEBO in 1992, I shall simply note that the issue of continuity versus discontinuity of evolution, both economic and ecological, is the central issue discussed in that paper. Indeed, I have a whole book on the subject. Sorry, but I am not going to provide a two sentence summary. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:57:02 -0400 Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
> The dialectical is me looking at what Gould
> is saying and analyzing it. I have never
> heard Gould use the term to describe it.
> However, Engels says somewhere that
> most good scientists then ( and now we might add)
> proceed dialectically but without knowing
> it. I will look for the statements from
> Engels and maybe Haldane, if you like.
>
> The principle in question is the interpenetration
> of quality and quantity. Darwin describes
> evolution as continuous (gradual). The punctuations
> would make it continuous with rare discontinuities.
>
> What say you ?
>
> Charles Brown
> Detroit
>
> >>> <WolfSave at aol.com> 08/17 4:49 PM >>>
> In a message dated 8/17/98 1:34:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us writes:
>
> << Stephen Jay Gould's thesis of punctuated
> equilibrium modifies Darwin's gradualism
> and makes a dialectical version of Darwinism.
> >>
> Would Gould agree with the "dialectical." I ask, because this is a curious
> statement to make, or least it's a new way of considering Darwin. However,
> George Herbert Mead, not to change the subject, uses a dialectic of the self
> to explain the individual and such; he had Darwin's natural selection in the
> back of his mind as he wrote, as I recall. I had not thought of natural
> selection in human or anthropocentric terms such as "dialectical," but for
> Mead.
> Just thinking out loud.
> Regards.
> Ed Evans
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu