Emergence

Both Jacobs and Gould critique the existing models of thinking about progress in their respective fields. Interestingly the two authors characterize these existing models of thought as inhabiting two opposite poles of the philosophical spectrum. Each posits a completely different existing paradigm for how man considers his relationship to nature. For Jacobs the existing model of thought about how cities progress is flawed because man has completely detached himself from nature. She writes on pg. 443, “Underlying the jejunue belief in ‘the dark and foreboding’ irrationality of chaos of cities, lies a long established misconception about the relationship of cities - and indeed of men - with the rest of nature.” Gould critiques the “adaptationist programme” of biology by claiming that it relies on a Panglossian view of nature. Dr. Pangloss, a character that Voltaire created for the explicit purpose of ridiculing his contemporary philosophical competition (Leibnitz), suffers from the misconception that “Things cannot be other than they are … Everything is made for the best purpose.” To sum up the differences between the two critiques in a far too simple manner we could say that Jacobs critiques a worldview that is overwhelming complex and irrational while Gouuld critiques a worldview that is overly totalizing and simplistic. Modern analogues to these critiqued paradigms could be nihilism and intelligent design perhaps.