Some Punctuationists Are Wrong about the Modern Synthesis

Philosophy of Science 55 (1):74-86 (1988)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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 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, and that Stidd fails to establish that punctuated equilibria is a new "paradigm"

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,809

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
31 (#725,454)

6 months
10 (#399,629)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paul Thompson
University of Toronto, St. George Campus

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Triumph of the Darwinian Method.Michael T. Ghiselin - 1973 - Philosophy of Science 40 (3):466-467.
The structure of scientific revolutions.Dudley Shapere - 1964 - Philosophical Review 73 (3):383-394.
Science and Subjectivity.Israel Scheffler - 1979 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 169 (1):119-123.

View all 18 references / Add more references