The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm
"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme", also known as the "Spandrels paper",
Background
"Spandrels" was originally written in 1978, and that year Gould delivered it as a talk to the Royal Society.[4] Gould had visited St. Mark's Cathedral shortly before he wrote the paper.[5] The published paper lists both Gould and Lewontin as authors. However, in a 2015 interview, Lewontin said that Gould wrote the majority of the paper, and that he himself had made only "a lesser contribution" to it.[6]
Style
Gould himself has referred to the paper as an "opinion piece" because, unlike most scientific papers, it was not based on a literature review or empirical data. It was written in a provocative and literary style that was unusual even compared to that of most other opinion pieces.[7] David C. Queller described the paper as "an opinion piece, a polemic, a manifesto, and a rhetorical masterpiece".[8]
Arguments
In the "Spandrels" paper, Gould and Lewontin argue that the mosaic design on the spandrels in St. Mark's Basilica is "so elaborate, harmonious, and purposeful that we are tempted to view it as the starting point of any analysis, as the cause in some sense of the surrounding architecture." They then claim that this would be inappropriate, because the spandrels themselves were an architectural constraint that "provide a space in which the mosaicists worked". The paper makes an analogy between these spandrels and the evolutionary constraints of living organisms, and the need to distinguish between the current use of a trait and the reason it evolved.[2]: 582 It also compares the adaptationist perspective to that of Dr. Pangloss, a character in Voltaire's Candide, who believed that the world he lived in was the best world possible.[9] This view is embodied in the statement by Pangloss that "Everything is made for the best purpose. Our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Legs were clearly intended for breeches, and we wear them."[10] The "Spandrels" paper also criticizes adaptationists for not developing sufficiently rigorous methods to test their hypotheses.[11]
Impact
"Spandrels" has proven highly influential and controversial since it was first published.
Reactions
Gould and Lewontin defined "spandrel" in biology as a constraint on an organism's evolution. However, Alasdair Houston subsequently suggested that another architectural term, "pendentive", might be a more accurate description of such constraints.[20] In his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett also criticized Gould and Lewontin's "spandrels" metaphor for the same reason, adding, "the spandrels of San Marco aren't spandrels even in Gould's extended sense. They are adaptations chosen from a set of equipossible alternatives for largely aesthetic reasons..." This criticism was itself criticized by Robert Mark, who argued that "Gould and Lewontin's misapplication of the term spandrel for pendentive perhaps implies a wider latitude of design choice than they intended for their analogy. But Dennett's critique of the architectural basis of the analogy goes even further astray because he slights the technical rationale of the architectural elements in question."[21] Some defenders of the adaptationist perspective developed "explanatory adaptationism" as a response to some of the arguments made in the paper. Explanatory adaptationism argues that adaptation, though uncommon, is still uniquely important in the evolutionary process.[22]
References
- ^ PMID 10652558.
- ^ PMID 42062.
- PMID 11038582.
- ISBN 9780125964210.
- ^ a b Radford, Tim (1993-12-18). "Review: Can we recognise the write stuff?". New Scientist. Retrieved 2018-12-26.
- The Evolution Institute. Retrieved 2018-12-25.
- ISBN 9780226316567.
- ^ doi:10.1086/419174.
- ISSN 1469-1825.
- PMID 14580557.
- ISSN 1572-8404.
- ^ doi:10.1086/418652.
- ISSN 0262-4079.
- ISSN 1572-8404.
- Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 2018-12-26.
- PMID 19744124.
- doi:10.1086/284064.
- New York Review of Books(in French). 42 (19): 46–48.
- ISSN 1540-7063.
- ISSN 0169-5347.
- JSTOR 29775710.
- ISSN 1572-8404.
- ^ Kalant, Harold; Kalow, Werner; Gould, Stephen Jay; Pinker, Steven (1997-10-09). "Evolutionary Psychology: An Exchange". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 2018-12-26.
- ISSN 1572-8404.
External links
- PMID 42062.
- Barnes, M. Elizabeth (2014-11-14). ""The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" (1979), by Stephen J. Gould and Richard C. Lewontin". Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona State University.