Hostname: page-component-66644f4456-vjjx6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T08:24:15.918Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Punctuationists are Wrong About the Modern Synthesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Paul Thompson
Paul Thompson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Division of Humanities, University of Toronto (Scarborough Campus)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Benton Stidd has defended the position that punctuationists are not wrong about the inadequacy of the synthetic theory of evolution for explaining evolution. The thrust of his defense is that arguments to the contrary by Thompson (1983a) involve a rational reconstruction along logical empiricist lines, which is insensitive to historical and social forces in a way that the Kuhnian Weltanschauung view that he espouses is not. I argue in this paper that Stidd has entirely misunderstood my arguments, that the soundness of my arguments does not depend on acceptance of logical empiricism (they are just as sound on a Kuhnian view), and that Stidd fails to establish that punctuated equilibria is a new “paradigm“.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 1988 , pp. 74 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Achinstein, P. (1964), “On the Meaning of Scientific Terms”, Journal of Philosophy 61: 475–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achinstein, P. (1965), “The Problem of Theoretical Terms”, American Philosophical Quarterly 2: 193–203.Google Scholar
Achinstein, P. (1968), Concepts of Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Ayala, F. J. (1983), “Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution”, in Asquith, P. and Nickles, T. (eds.), PSA 1982, vol. 2. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 275–291.Google Scholar
Beckner, M. (1959), The Biological Way of Thought. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, W. J. (1979), “The Synthetic Explanation of Macroevolutionary Change—A Reductionist Approach”, Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 13: 20–69.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1970), Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T.; Ayala, F. J.; Stebbins, G. L.; and Valentine, J. W. (1977), Evolution. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Gould, S. J. (1972), “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism”, in Schopf, T. J. M. (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, pp. 82–115.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1969), The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goudge, T. A. (1961), The Ascent of Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1973), Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. (1968), “Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level”, Nature 217: 624–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimura, M., and Ohta, T. (1972), “Population Genetics, Molecular Biometry, and Evolution”, in Lecam, L. M. et al. (eds.), L. M. Lecam et al. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 43–68.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970a), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970b), “Reflections on my Critics”, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977a), “Second Thoughts on Paradigms”, in Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, pp. 459–482.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977b), The Essential Tension. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1958), The Theory of Evolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Second and third editions were issued in 1966 and 1975, respectively. Page numbers are to the third edition.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1954), “Change of Genetic Environment and Evolution”, in Huxley, J., Hardy, A. C. and Ford, E. B. (eds.), Evolution as a Process. London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 157–180.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963), Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1970), Populations, Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981), The Rationality of Science. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1965), “How Not to Talk About Meaning”, in Cohen, R. S. and Wartofsky, M. W. (eds.), In Honor of Philipp Frank, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II. New York: Humanities Press, pp. 205–222.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1967), Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1964), “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Philosophical Review 73: 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1966), “Meaning and Scientific Change”, in Colodny, R. (ed.), Mind and Cosmos: Explorations in the Philosophy of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 41–85.Google Scholar
Stebbins, G. L. (1966), Processes of Organic Evolution. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Stebbins, G. L., and Ayala, F. J. (1981), “Is A New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?”, Science 213: 967–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, S. M. (1979), Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Stidd, B. M. (1980), “The Neotonous Origin of the Pollen Organ of the Gymnosperm Cycadeoidea and the Implications for the Origin of Higher Taxa”, Paleobiology 6: 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stidd, B. M. (1985), “Are Punctuationists Wrong about the Modern Synthesis?”, Philosophy of Science 52: 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1972), “What's Wrong with the Received View on the Structure of Scientific Theories”, Philosophy of Science 39: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1977) The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (1983a), “Tempo and Mode in Evolution: Punctuated Equilibrium and the Modern Synthetic Theory”, Philosophy of Science 50: 432–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1983b), “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: A Semantic Approach”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14: 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1983c), “Historical Laws in Modern Biology”, Acta Biotheoretica 32: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1985), “Sociobiological Explanation and the Testability of Sociobiological Theory”, in Fetzer, James H. (ed.), Sociobiology and Epistemology. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1986), “The Interaction of Theories and the Semantic Conception of Evolutionary Theory”, Philosophica 37: 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M. J. D. (1968), “Models of Speciation”, Science 159: 1065–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, M. J. D. (1978), Modes of Speciation. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
White, M. J. D. (1981) “Tales of Long Ago—The Birth of Evolutionary Theory as a Scientific Discipline”, Paleobiology 7: 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. M. (1977), Reduction in the Physical Sciences. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar