Punctuated Equilibrium and the Validation of Macroevolutionary Theory 1013
bulk of this publicity, but I understand the all too human tendency to view
achievements of perceived rivals as imposture rooted in base motivation. Moreover,
jealousy gains a particularly potent expression in science for the ironic reason that
professional norms do not permit us to acknowledge such feelings or motivations,
even to ourselves. Our negativities are supposed to arise from perceived fallacies in
the logic or empirical content of hypotheses we dislike, not from personal expressions
of envy. Thus, if our emotions exude distress and anger, but we cannot admit, or even
recognize, jealousy as a source, then we must impute our genuine envy to the
supposed intellectual malfeasance of our opponents—and our internal feeling
becomes falsely objectified as their failing. This form of transference leads to larger
problems in the sociology of science than we have generally been willing to admit.
- THE PHILOSOPHICALLY INTERESTING ISSUE OF LIMITED
CONCEPTUAL SPACE. I have long faced a paradox in trying to understand why
many intelligent critics seem unable to understand or acknowledge our reiterated
insistence that the radical claim of punctuated equilibrium lies not in any proposal for
revised microevolutionary mechanisms (especially not in any novel explanations for
punctuations), but rather at the level of macroevolution, in claims for efficacy of
higher-level selection based on the status of species, under punctuated equilibrium, as
genuine Darwinian individuals.
When smart people don't "get it," one must conclude that the argument lies
outside whatever "conceptual space" they maintain for assessing novel ideas in a
given area. Many evolutionists, particularly those committed to the strict Darwinism
of unifocal causation at Darwin's own organismic level, or below at the genie level,
have never considered the hierarchical model, and apparently maintain no conceptual
space for the notion of effective selection at higher levels. These scientists then face
the following situation: (1) they note correctly that punctuated equilibrium stakes
some claim for novelty within evolutionary theory; (2) their concept of "evolutionary
theory" does not extend to causation above the organismic level, so they do not grasp
the actual content of our claim; (3) they correctly understand that punctuated
equilibrium offers no radical statement about microevolutionary mechanics; (4)
Q.E.D., the authors of punctuated equilibrium must be grandstanding by asserting a
radical claim without content. But the limit lies within the conceptual space of our
critics, not in the character of our rhetoric. - THE PARTICULAR PREJUDICE THAT FANS THE FLAMES. Certain
Words embody unusual power, for reasons both practical and emotional—"fire" in a
crowded theater, or "communist" at right-wing pep rallies of old. For reasons of
impeccable historical pedigree, thoroughly explored in Chapters 2-6 of this book, and
rooted largely in Darwin's own philosophical preferences, the most incendiary words
for dedicated Darwinians (once we get past Lamarckism, creationism, and a few
others) must be the various synonyms of "sudden"—"rapid," "instantaneous,"
"quick," "discontinuous," and the like. Proponents of punctuated equilibrium do use
these words—but at an appropriate scale of geological time, to express
microevolutionary continuities that translate to punctuations in this larger temporal
realm. Nonetheless,