tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post6250253482242147641..comments2023-09-25T09:44:38.184-07:00Comments on Evolutionary Novelties: Gould: Pluralism by monismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-39739900253070892562008-05-31T09:13:00.000-07:002008-05-31T09:13:00.000-07:00David:You raise a valid point. Many people accuse...David:<BR/>You raise a valid point. Many people accuse Gould of making caricatures of the opposing arguments. I think he did tend to over-estimate the "monism" of the opposing arguments sometimes. Yet the Spandrels paper for one does address that criticism, whether it answers the criticism or not is a judgment call. In any event, your point is well taken.Todd Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14309149952900395185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-13087115381466434782008-05-30T22:57:00.000-07:002008-05-30T22:57:00.000-07:00I'm not a biologist, but I've read my share of Gou...I'm not a biologist, but I've read my share of Gould (including the "Spandrels" paper), and I tend to agree with his critics. You hit the nail on the head with your discussion of false dichotomies, but it seems to me that Gould often promoted false dichotomies in order to sell his ideas as revolutionary.<BR/><BR/>You mention adaptationism, gradualism, and "determinism". Richard Dawkins, in "The Blind Watchmaker", presented versions of these ideas that are different from Gould's--more subtle, more sensible, and, according to Dawkins, more closely resembling what most biologists actually think. To my knowledge, Gould never addressed any of them.<BR/><BR/>But again, I'm not a biologist, and I could be a decade or two behind the curve. I found your blog through Pharyngula, and I look forward to your next post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-82529528569088458992008-05-26T21:05:00.000-07:002008-05-26T21:05:00.000-07:00Excellent entry. That is why science is so beauti...Excellent entry. That is why science is so beautiful: it's dynamism. It operates on a system that does not automatically preclude differing views. Status quo may push against differing views, but the evidence-based mechanisms of the scientific method eventually prevail, and allow the knowledge to push forward.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Joshua's comment, excellent insight. This "pluralism by monism" could apply to much more than science, I'm sure.Mike the Iron Stomachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01942708770586863433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-26451983056717004012008-05-26T02:54:00.000-07:002008-05-26T02:54:00.000-07:00Very nice post. An interesting insight. We human...Very nice post. An interesting insight. We humans tend to be very polar in our opinions. False dichotomies abound!<BR/><BR/>Thanks to tr gregory for pointing out your blog...it is now part of my google reader feed.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14895727406161536929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6821840758756075048.post-36757906754144269742008-05-24T16:56:00.000-07:002008-05-24T16:56:00.000-07:00I think this is very sensible, and in fact one can...I think this is very sensible, and in fact one can see how it would be reinforced, as those who took side A would try to argue that Gould's side B was, in fact, unimportant -- making Gould emphasize side B more forcefully.T Ryan Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028390880937952573noreply@blogger.com