Pardon me for being pragmatist about this, but as a sometime professional historian and philosopher of science, let me say that I think that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Marx was an amateur political economist, trained (like me!) as a philosopher and lawyer. On a more mundane level, Frederick Crewes, English prof at Berkeley, has turned out to be a forminable critic of psychoanalysis, although he lacks formal psychological training as far as I know. It's quite possible for people without formal training in even an objective and rigorous discipline to have interesting and worthwhile things to say about the work in that area. I would rather hear substantive criticisms, if they are any, of Hawkes' views on Gould than carping about his lack of qualifications.
I read the piece and had certain reservations about it, but I don't recall what they were. Oh yeah, now it comes to me. Hawkes claims that Gould isn't a real Darwinian because he says that there are non-natural selection sources of evolutionary charge. This strikes me as idle. We are all Dawrwinians; no one apart from the creationists disputes that NS is a or the major motor of evolutionary change, and that order emerges out of chaos, and Paley's watchmaker paradox is answered, quite adequately by Darwinian theory. Gould isn't even particularly unique in acknowledging that there are non-NS sources: the "neutral" theory that much evolutionary change is explained by simple survival of non-harmful but not beneficial mutations is older than his work. Gould's originality is in the suggestion that there is less gradual evolutionary change, measured in geological time. That's quite compatable with Darwinism.
jks
>>
>>>Carrol wrote:
>>>
>>>>``...It is safest, unless one is both a professional scientist _and_ a
>>>>professional historian/philosopher of science,
>>>
Kells said:
>>>rubbish. so few people are both scientist and historian/philosopher
>>>of science that you are suggesting that no one, not even colleagues
>>>in the history or philosophy of science, should speak to his work,
>>>since they are not also scientists.
Youshie added:
>
>I think that mathematics, physics, chemistry, and maybe some other
>natural sciences can claim to be objectively scientific on the whole.
>Whether economics, criminal justice, and other social sciences as
>they are practiced today is on the whole scientific is very
>questionable. Perhaps, they shouldn't be put into the same category
>of science.
>
>On the practical side, when you get sick, you won't turn to
>professors of literature, philosophy, history, economics, etc., not
>even to professors of biology, chemistry, etc.; you seek medical
>doctors.
>
>By now, humanity has produced so much knowledge that no one can be a
>reliable expert in everything. Modern civilization depends upon some
>division of labor, and we have to make science democratic -- make it
>serve human beings -- while recognizing the fact of an inevitable
>division of labor.
>--
>Yoshie
>
>* Calendar of Events in Columbus:
><http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
>* Anti-War Activist Resources:
><http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
>* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
>* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com