Talk:Stephen Jay Gould

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Biografías y vida.png The article Stephen Jay Gould, along with other articles relating to relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
  • Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
  • Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
  • Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
  • Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
  • Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
  • Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
  • Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.
Good article Stephen Jay Gould has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Stephen Jay Gould is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Stephen Jay Gould at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Biography portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
 This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Genetics (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Columbia University  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Columbia University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Columbia University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon History of science portal
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Gastropods (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Gastropods portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taxonomy: Project Gastropods relies on the taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005), and the changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005. When you start new articles, please do not use taxonomy that is older than 2005, except in a historical context. If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

Contents

[edit] GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Stephen Jay Gould/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This is a GA review conducted by the sweeps process to assess older GA articles to determine whether they are still up to the quality as when they were promoted to GA. I believe that this article is well written, well-referenced, detailed, and is NPOV. This article remains a GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General Tone

The tone of this article is generally defensive. It cites critics, but tries then to defend Gould in a partisan fashion. For example, it cites Maynard Smith's critical remarks, and then mentions earlier occasions when Maynard Smith was laudatory (which to my mind is irrelevant to the criticisms made in the article in MS's review of Dennett). It would be a lot better to take a more distanced approach. It should be acknowledged that Gould did raise the ire of many evolutionary biologists for the good reason that his presentation of their views was often quite polemical and scientifically biased. Of course, this doesn't mean that Gould was not an eminent scientist who made real contributions. What it means is that he wasn't a cool-headed and fair critic of positions opposed to his own. Philonous2 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Philonous 2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philonous2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The article evolved that way years ago when it was heavily biased against Gould. A number of editors, both critical and supportive of Gould, tried to balance the article with evenhanded commentary. Maynard Smith's positive comments were considered relevant due to the fact that they contradicted his more recent remarks that Gould was "confused" and not worth bothering with. You're right when you say Gould was polemical and scientifically biased. But those are hardly adjectives which Gould should be singled out for. Every prominent evolutionary biologist that I'm aware of can be accused of the same thing. It seems to go with the territory of being at the top of what you do. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Gould was a massively overrated self-pusher 81.178.153.156 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
And what is your evidence for this claim? Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hypothesis vs. Theory

The exercise of classifying a scientific idea as either a hypothesis or theory is somewhat subjective, and relies on varying understandings of the two terms. What generally makes a scientific theory indeed a theory at all are two principal things. One, that it is a broad explanation which incorporates other hypotheses to explain a series of observations. And second, that it has withstood critical testing and scrutiny, and thereby functions as a plausible explanation by professionals in the scientific community.[1] By such a definition punctuated equilibrium surely meets the minimum requirement for a scientific theory.

While practitioners in the fields of paleontology and evolutionary biology use both terms to describe the model of evolution proposed by Eldredge and Gould, the term most often used in the professional literature today is the word "theory."

Notable evolutionists who favor the word theory include Ernst Mayr,[2] who was among the greatest evolutionists of the 20th century. And although Mayr began as a critic of punctuated equilibrium, he became a strong devotee as time went on.[3] The eminent evolutionist John Maynard Smith disagreed with Gould about the tempo of evolution, but he nevertheless saw fit to describe PE as a theory,[4] which if true was saying something very significant about the character of evolutionary change. Richard Dawkins—perhaps the best known evolutionist today—devoted an entire chapter to PE in his book The Blind Watchmaker, and while critical, designates PE with the word "theory," in this book[5] and others.[6][7][8] Philosopher of biology, and outspoken critic of Gould, Michael Ruse also describes PE not only as a theory[9][10] but a genuine scientific paradigm.[11][12] Mark Ridley, another critic of Gould and former student of Richard Dawkins, wrote a definitive textbook on evolution titled Evolution. Throughout the text Ridley also prefers to use the word theory.[13] Other prominent scientists include George C. Williams,[14] G. Ledyard Stebbins,[15] Michael T. Ghiselin,[16] Francisco J. Ayala,[17] Richard Lewontin,[18] Richard Levins,[19] Steven Rose,[20] Sean B. Carroll,[21] Steven Pinker,[22] Norman D. Newell,[23] Jerry Coyne,[24] Brian Charlesworth,[25] William Provine,[26] John Turner,[27] Stuart Kauffman,[28] paleoanthropologists such as C. Loring Brace,[29] Richard Leakey,[30] Tim White,[31] Ian Tattersall,[32] and historians of science Peter J. Bowler,[33] Frank Sulloway,[34] Michael Shermer,[35] and Frank Rhodes.[36] Then of course there are the numerous writings of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]

After the publication of Eldredge and Gould's 1972 paper, numerous paleontologists sought to investigate their claims, and have contributed greatly to the understanding of evolutionary tempo. Paleontologists who describe PE as a theory rather than hypothesis include David Raup,[48] David Sepkoski,[49] Richard Fortey,[50] Peter Ward,[51] J. William Schopf,[52] Robert L. Carroll[53] Elisabeth Vrba,[54] Donald Prothero,[55] Tim Flannery,[56] Douglas Erwin,[57][58] Warren D. Allmon,[59] Robert T. Bakker,[60] John R. Horner,[61] Michael McKinney,[62] Bruce Lieberman,[63] Mark McMenamin,[64] Patricia Princehouse,[65] David Fastovsky,[66] John Huss,[67] Richard Bambach,[68] Anthony Hallam,[69] Arthur Boucot,[70] John Alroy,[71] David Norman,[72] D. B. Lazarus,[73] Richard Kerr,[74] and many, many others.[75][76][77]Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag; see the help page[78]

To justify the preference for the designation "hypothesis" we our provided with Douglas Futuyma's principle textbook Evolutionary Biology. While both Futuyma and his textbook are very well respected in the field of evolutionary biology, Futuyma's practice of dubbing punctuated equilibrium a hypothesis is: first, unrepresentative of most biologists; second, frequently inconsistent;[79] and third a reflection of Futuyma's conservative employment of the word theory. For example, in his book Science on Trial Futuyma goes as far as to say, "Every scientific claim is a hypothesis, however well supported it may be."[80] This point is further elaborated upon in the opening pages of his textbook Evolutionary Biology. There he states his preference to restrict his use of the word "theory" to describe a "complex of statements" which are composed of a large "body of hypotheses" which "does not stand or fall on the basis of a single critical test."[81] Futuyma thereby limits the word theory to such things as "atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of plate tectonics," but not others theories like allopatric speciation, the idea that hemoglobin carries oxygen in our blood, or the "hypothesis that smoking causes cancer."[81] Futuyma also makes a distinction between the "pattern of punctuated equilibrium" and the "hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium." The pattern represents the empirics of the theory, and hypothesis represents the causal agency. Yet in other places he uses the word "theory" to identify the whole structure of punctuated equilibrium.[79][82] With these facts in mind, Futuyma should hardly be considered the definitive word on the matter.

The words: tempo, mode, pattern, model, hypothesis, theory, thesis, idea, concept, and paradigm have all been used to describe punctuated equilibrium in the literature (and they are often used interchangeably).[83][84][85] In fact Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge made it a point to use the more neutral word "picture" in their 1972 paper to avoid what they called a "tedious debate" about what to label their new idea.[86] However as they began to develop PE over the years you see a notable shift in their language. They switch to the word model,Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag; see the help page and eventually move to the word theory.

Lastly, just as an experiment I ran the phrases "hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium" and "theory of punctuated equilibrium" through Google's digitized book search engine. The phrase with the word theory returned 2,080 results whereas the former only returned 119. The same pattern resulted using Google Scholar, with the word theory returning 1,010 results and the word hypothesis only returning 60.

Today it is obvious that the word theory dominates the professional literature with the highest relative frequency. As such it should be used in this article. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Literature cited

  1. ^ AHD. 2005. American Heritage Science Dictionary. New York: Houghton Mifflin, p. 313.
  2. ^ Mayr, E. 1998. This is Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 71.
  3. ^ Mayr, E. 1992. "Speciational Evolution or Punctuated Equilibria." In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson's The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornell University Press, pp. 24-25, 27, 29-30, 32, 36.
  4. ^ Maynard Smith, J. 1983. "The Genetics of Stasis and Punctuation." Annual Review of Genetics 7 (Dec.): 11-13.
  5. ^ Dawkins, R. 1986. Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 229, 236, 244, 250-251, 287.
  6. ^ Dawkins, R. 1982. Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 102.
  7. ^ Dawkins, R. 2004. A Devil's Chaplain. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 199, 212.
  8. ^ Dawkins, R. 2005. The Ancestor's Tale. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 499.
  9. ^ Ruse, M. 2008. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55, 212, 215, 220, 595, 614.
  10. ^ Ruse, M. 2000. The Evolution Wars. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, p. 323.
  11. ^ Ruse, M. 1992. "Is the theory of punctuated equilibria a new paradigm?" In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson's The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornell University Press, 1992, pp. 139.
  12. ^ Ruse, M. 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm. London: Psychology Press, pp. 94, 116-118, 121-123, 125-126, 130, 135, 138-139, 140, 143-144.
  13. ^ Ridley, Mark 2004. Evolution. Third edition. New York: Blackwell, pp. 599-601.
  14. ^ Williams, G. C. 1992. Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 125.
  15. ^ Stebbins, G. L. and F. Ayala. 1985. "The evolution of darwinism." Scientific American 253 (July): 72-89.
  16. ^ Ghiselin, M. 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. New York: SUNY Press, p. 268.
  17. ^ Ayala, F. J. 2005. "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: on Stephen Jay Gould's Monumental Masterpiece." Theology and Science 3 (1): 97, 100-101, 104, 106-108.
  18. ^ Lewontin, R. C. It Ain't Necessarily So. New York: NYRB, p. 60.
  19. ^ Lewontin, R. and Richard Levins. C. 2009. "Stephen Jay Gould: What Does it Mean to be a Radical?" Stephen Jay Gould. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 200.
  20. ^ Rose, S. 1999. "Evolutionary psychology–biology impoverished" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 24 (4): 175-178.
  21. ^ Carroll, S. B. 2008. "Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis." Cell 134 (July 11): 25.
  22. ^ Pinker, S. 1995. "Natural language and natural selection." The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 458.
  23. ^ Newell, N. 1999. "This view of Stephen Jay Gould." Natural History 108 (Nov.): 54.
  24. ^ Coyne, J. and B. Charlesworth. 1997. "On punctuated equilibria." Science 276 (5311): 337-341.
  25. ^ Charlesworth, B., R. Lande, M. Slatkin. 1982. "A Neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution." Evolution 36 (3): 474-5 478 480 490, 493.
  26. ^ Provine, W. B. 1989. Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 286, 494.
  27. ^ Turner, J. 1984. "Why we need evolution by jerks." New Scientist 101 (Feb. 19): 35.
  28. ^ Kauffman, S. 1993. The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 19.
  29. ^ Brace, C.L. 1988. "Punctuationism, cladistics and the legacy of Medieval Neoplatonism." Human Evolution 3 (3): 121-139.
  30. ^ Leakey, R. 1996. The Sixth Extinction. New York: Anchor Books, p. 226.
  31. ^ White, T. 2009. "Ladders, Bushes, Punctuations, and Clades." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 137.
  32. ^ Tattersall, I. 1999. Becoming Human. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 94.
  33. ^ Bowler, P. J. 1983. Evolution: The History of An Idea. Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 336.
  34. ^ Sulloway, F. 1987. "The metaphor and the rock." New York Review of Books 34 (May 28): 39-40.
  35. ^ Shermer, M. "This view of science." Social Studies of Science 32 (4): 497, 511.
  36. ^ Rhodes, F. 1983. "Gradualism, punctuated equilibrium and the Origin of Species" Nature 305: 269-272.
  37. ^ Gould, S. J. 1980. "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology 6 (1): 125.
  38. ^ Gould, S. J. 1981. "Evolution as fact and theory." Discover 2 (May): 34-37.
  39. ^ Gould, S. J. 1982. "The meaning of punctuated equilibrium and its role in validating a hierarchical approach to macroevolution." In R. Milkman, ed., Perspectives on Evolution. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates, p. 88.
  40. ^ Gould, S. J. 1982. "Punctuated equilibrium—a different way of seeing." New Scientist 94 (April): 137-139.
  41. ^ Gould, S. J. 1985 "The paradox of the first tier." Paleobiology 11 (1): 4-6, 10.
  42. ^ Gould, S. J. 1986, "Punctuated equilibrium at the third stage." Systematic Zoology 35 (1): 143.
  43. ^ Gould, S. J. 1992. "Punctuated equilibrium in fact and theory." In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornel University Press, pp. 56-57.
  44. ^ Gould, S. J. 1993. "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age." Nature 366 (6452): 223-227.
  45. ^ Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 37, 39, 49, 55, 563, 606-7, 652, 714, 755, 765-6, 768, 772, 774-5, 777, 791, 794, 796, 807-8, 822, 824-5, 839-41, 851, 854, etc., etc.
  46. ^ Eldredge, N. 1986. "Progress in evolution?" New Scientist 151 (June): 54-55.
  47. ^ Eldredge, N. 1992. "Punctuated equilibria, rates of change, large scale entities." In Albert Somit and Steven Peterson The Dynamics of Evolution. New York: Cornel University Press, p. 104.
  48. ^ Raup, D. 1992. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? New York: W. W. Norton, p. 7.
  49. ^ Sepkoski, D. 2009. "Radical or Conservative." The Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 303.
  50. ^ Fortey, R. 2000. Trilobite!. New York: Knoff Press, p. 165.
  51. ^ Ward, P. 1998. The Call of Distant Mammoths. New York: Springer, p. 103.
  52. ^ Schopf, J. W. 1999. Evolution!: Facts and Fallacies. New York: Academic Press, p. 45.
  53. ^ Carroll, R. 1997. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xii, 86, 89, 110, 145.
  54. ^ Lieberman, B. and E. S. Vrba 2005. "Stephen Jay Gould on Species Selection" Paleobiology 31 (2): 113-121.
  55. ^ Prothero, D. 1992. "Punctuated equilibrium at twenty." Skeptic 1 (3): 38-47.
  56. ^ Flannery, T. 2002. "A New Darwinism?" New York Review of Books 49 (May 23): 52-54.
  57. ^ Erwin, D. 2010. "Microevolution and macroevolution are not governed by the same processes." Contemporary Debates Philosophy Biology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 182, 184.
  58. ^ Erwin, D. and R. Anstey 1995. New Approaches to Speciation in the Fossil Record. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 3, 7, 14-18, 22, 24, 37, 39, 67. 77, 202-204.
  59. ^ Allmon, W. D. 2009. "The Structure of Gould." Stephen Jay Gould. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20.
  60. ^ Bakker, R. 1996. The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: Kensington Publishing, pp. 398, 401.
  61. ^ Horner, John. 1997. Dinosaur Lives. New York: Harper Collins, pp. 169-70, 175, 190.
  62. ^ McKinney, M. and L. Drake. 2001. Biodiversity Dynamics. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 283, 430-431.
  63. ^ Lieberman, B. 2000. Paleobiogeography. New York: Springer, p. 67.
  64. ^ McMenamin, M. 1998.The Garden of Ediacara. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 216.
  65. ^ Princehouse, P. 2009. "Punctuated equilibria and speciation." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 155. 159-160, 168, 171.
  66. ^ Fastovsky, D. 2009. "Ideas in dinosaur paleontology." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 243.
  67. ^ Huss, J. 2009. "The shape of evolution." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 326, 339.
  68. ^ Bambach, R. 2009. "From empirical paleoecology to evolutionary paleobiology." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 398.
  69. ^ Hallam, A. 2009. "The problem of punctuational speciation and trends in the fossil record." Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 428 430.
  70. ^ Boucot, A. 2009. "Punctuated equilibrium versus community evolution.' Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 438.
  71. ^ Alroy, J. 1998. "Equilibrium diversity dynamics in North American mammals." In Michael McKinney and James Drake. Biodiversity Dynamics. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 283.
  72. ^ Norman, David. 2005. Dinosaurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 42.
  73. ^ Lazarus, D. B. 2001. "Species Evolution." Paleobiology II. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 135.
  74. ^ Kerr, R. 1996. "New mammal data challenge evolutionary pulse theory." Science 273 (5274): 431.
  75. ^ Mettler, L., T. Gregg, and H. Schaffer. 1988. Population Genetics and Evolution. Englewood Cliffs , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, p. 304.
  76. ^ Anderson, T., D. Schum, W. Twining. 2004. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37, 150.
  77. ^ Aronson, R. and R. Plotnick. 1998. "Scale independent interpretations of macro evolutionary dynamics." In Michael McKinney and James Drake. Biodiversity Dynamics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 430-1.
  78. ^ McShea, D. and R. Brandon. 2010. Biology's First Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 115.
  79. ^ a b Futuyma, D. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. New York: Sinauer Associates, p. 247.
  80. ^ Futuyma, D. 1983. Science on Trial. New York: Pantheon Books, p. 167.
  81. ^ a b Futuyma, D. 1998. Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates, pp. 9-12.
  82. ^ Futuyma, D. 2002. "Stephen Jay Gould a la recherché du temps perdu." Science 296 (April): 662.
  83. ^ Dennet, D. 1996. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 282, 290-291.
  84. ^ Levinton, J. S. 2001. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 307, 311-312, 319, 338, 366, 502.
  85. ^ Hoffman, Antoni. 1989. Arguments on Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 133.
  86. ^ Eldredge, Niles, and S. J. Gould (1972). "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism." In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Company, p. 84.


And what about the use of the term hypothesis in the paper by Gould et al.? Does that not count? And you're citing non-peer reviewed books. What about peer-reviewed articles? It is peer-reviewed articles that deserve attention. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points. First, I have already acknowledged that scientists have used the term hypothesis to describe punctuated equilibrium. That is not the issue. The issue is about relative frequency. A great majority of scientists, and this is especially true today, use the word theory to describe punctuated equilibrium. This is a fact. It is also a fact that among the most renown evolutionists, like Ernst Mayr and John Maynard Smith, the word theory is the preferred designation. You simply cannot find a source here and there and think you have made your case. You have to be familiar with the entire literature on the subject. And in this case, the literature is heavily against you.
Second, I read the paper you cited and I am left a bit confused. Throughout Gould and Eldredge's 1986 paper they use the word "theory" to describe their model of punctuated equilibrium, not hypothesis. They write, "We developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a guide for paleontological practice..." and "Paleontologists greeted our theory with interest..." As a matter of fact, I used it above as a counter example. But in any case, what needs to be done is to look at their entire body of published material, not just one or two examples. The point is that the vast majority of their papers and books use the word “theory” (as do their critics and supporters).
Third, virtually all of the literature I cited was peer reviewed, in one way or another. Either they were published in a peer reviewed journal—like Nature, Cell, or Paleobiology—or in books published by a university press. In both cases the manuscripts have to be vetted through a peer review process. But yet again, this is kind of missing the point. What I'm trying to convey is that among the big players in evolutionary biology, most scientists use the word theory when describing punctuated equilibrium. For example, is Ernst Mayr's word worth any less because he is writing in a book rather than a journal? Hardly. Miguel Chavez (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
@Mchavez, I concede the point that theory is now commonly used to describe punctuated equilibrium. Apparently, the 1986 paper by Gould and Eldredge uses both theory and hypothesis (e.g., see p. 146) to describe their theory. Second, there is a big difference between publishing a book and in a journal. I myself have done both. I can tell you from experience and as a scientist that they not equivalent. This IS SCIENCE, we are not in the business of hero worship. Anyway, that is straying from the main point, which I think is very much resolved by the extensive list of references that you provided. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy we could resolve this. But you're right that there are significant differences between publishing in a journal as compared to a book. For example, scientific journals are much more competitive and the process of peer review is especially intense. However from what I am told, books published through a university press go through a similar process of review. They are divided up by chapters and vetted by respective experts in their field. I'm not sure you were implying this, but I think it's unfair to equate books published by a university press to those published by a publishing house. The latter is almost exclusively concerned with sales figures, whereas the former probably looses money and is principally concerned with scholarship. In any case, my point was to establish that the major thinkers in evolutionary biology prefer to use the word "theory" when describing punctuated equilibrium regardless of what medium they use. And a final point here, it is kind of unrealistic to think that the anonymous reviewers of a journal really care one way or another whether an author prefers to use the word "theory" or "hypothesis." They are probably concerned with more pressing matters, like checking the data, the author's reasoning, and their sums. So in this case I think the issue of books vs. journals is a bit of a red herring.
Finally, I'd like to offer a small disagreement over the comment you made regarding science and hero worship. It is important to differentiate what we'd like to be the case, to what is the case. Of course we would like to believe that scientists are dispassionate discovers of truth, who are without egos and petty biases. But as scholarship in the history of science has shown us, scientists are anything but. Hero worship is rampant, and scientists (especially those who are at the forefront of their field) are very much vulnerable to prejudice, tribalism, envy, and other human foibles. What makes science special is not so much the nature of the people, but the nature of the process. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Books published by university press do go through some review but they are not as stringent. Plus, the author are not bound by the criticisms of the reviewers and can disregard them. Journal authors do not have such luxury.
You would be mistaken if authors/scientists are not concerned with the distinction between "theories" and hypotheses." Think of the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution in high schools and the arguments that it is "just a theory." How many times must scientists and educators remind the general public that there is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis? How many times in science classes, do we teach people the scientific method, which begins with forming a hypothesis? How many times are grant writers reminded to include the major hypotheses that they wish to test? Obviously, no so trivial. One term is just a guess, the other term is reality. Not a red herring at all. I am just surprised that punctuated equilibrium has been accepted as a theory, which means that it is very much part of the paradigm and here to stay for a long long time.
There is some hero worship in science, no doubt. You're right, there is always bias and prejudice. It is after all made by people. But that's the beauty of science, is that it is possible and even encouraged to challenge the ideas of the heroes to see if they wrong. And if you succeed, you get a prize. Not many fields are like that. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Terminal additions?

The sub-section Evolutionary Developmental Biology describes the process of heterochrony encompassing "two distinct processes" of pedomorphosis and terminal additions. This is a bit misleading. From what I've read in Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Gould builds upon Gavin de Beer's work with embryos which states that there are eight "morphological modes" of heterochrony: caenogenesis, adult variation, neoteny, hypermorphosis, deviation, retardation, reduction, and acceleration. Gould states that these can be reduced to only two processes: acceleration and retardation (Gould, 1977, pp. 222-223).

Gould defines pedomorphosis as a consequence of progenesis or neoteny, but terminal addition is defined as a mechanism of Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law, which is mostly considered today to be an obsolete theory. I think the article is confusing "terminal additions" with acceleration and retardation, but I may be misunderstanding a broader definition of the term if there is one. Consider revising. -Ano-User (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Jay_Gould&oldid=479025691"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export