Re: Re: Re: gould dies at 60

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me rephrase Scott's question crudely: if Marx developed punctuated
equilibrium on his own and Gould was influenced by Marx, why would I possibly
need Gould to help me understand punctuated equilibrium?

This question makes me think of the difficulty that I sometimes encounter -- sort
of a methodological transformation problem.  Sometimes I read Marxist literature;
sometimes bourgeois economics.  I do not always manage to integrate the two
worlds.

I think that Gould was exceedingly helpful in getting me to do that better.

Incidentally, Russell Jacoby visited Chico couple of weeks ago.  In decrying the
absence of public intellectuals, he mentioned that the one area where academics
succeeded in communicating with the broader population was science writing.  He
mentioned Gould in particular.

Why are we so bad that doing that in economics.  Some years ago, Arthur Diamond a
computer program that supposedly diagnoses clarity of writing to analyze the
Richard T. Ely lectures.  He showed a markedly downward trend.

Friedman can write clearly; so can John Kenneth Galbraith.  Brad de Long and
Krugman are good communicators.  Are other disciplines more successful than
economics?

ScottH9999@xxxxxxx wrote:

>  I find it somewhat ironic that Michael should say that this theory
> should have in turn influenced him and others in the area of political
> economy. The question in my mind is why didn't Marxist philosophy have a more
> DIRECT influence here?
>

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx