Is uniformitarianism necessary¶
Gould, S. J. (1965). Is uniformitarianism necessary. American Journal of Science, 263(3), 223-228.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Uniformitarianism
- (2) the assumption has multiple strengths — substantive uniformitarianism (the rates and intensities of processes have also remained roughly constant) is stronger than methodological uniformitarianism (only the kinds of processes are invariant) which is stronger than ontological uniformitarianism (only the physical laws are invariant), a tripartite analysis Gould (1965) developed in his influential paper "Is uniformitarianism necessary?";
This sourceDistinguishes substantive uniformitarianism (rate invariance) from methodological uniformitarianism (kind invariance) from ontological uniformitarianism (law invariance); argues only the methodological version is a useful (and the substantive version a falsifiable) doctrine.
- (3) the principle is pragmatic rather than absolute — it licenses reconstruction in the absence of positive evidence for regime change, but must be suspended when evidence of regime change emerges (mass extinctions, major geochemical transitions, anthropogenic changes), a pragmatic reading consistent with Gould's (1965) reduction of uniformitarianism to its methodological component only;
This sourceArgues that the methodological reading reduces uniformitarianism to a pragmatic assumption of mechanism continuity, suspendable when evidence of regime change (e.g., catastrophic events) is present.
- (2) the assumption has multiple strengths — substantive uniformitarianism (the rates and intensities of processes have also remained roughly constant) is stronger than methodological uniformitarianism (only the kinds of processes are invariant) which is stronger than ontological uniformitarianism (only the physical laws are invariant), a tripartite analysis Gould (1965) developed in his influential paper "Is uniformitarianism necessary?";
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:f780d38981d5 · see in the full table