Time's Arrow Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time

by Stephen Jay Gould

Rarely has a scholar attained such popular acclaim merely by doing what he does best and enjoys most. But such is Stephen Jay Gould's command of paleontology and evolutionary theory, and his gift for brilliant explication, that he has brought dust and dead bones to life, and developed an immense following for the seeming arcana of this field. In Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle his subject is nothing less than geology's signal contribution to human thought--the discovery of "deep time," the vastness of earth's history, a history so ancient that we can comprehend it only as metaphor. He follows a single thread through three documents that mark the transition in our thinking from thousands to billions of Thomas Burnet's four-volume Sacred Theory of the Earth (1680-1690), James Hutton's Theory of the Earth (1795), and Charles Lyell's three-volume Principles of Geology (1830-1833). Gould's major theme is the role of metaphor in the formulation and testing of scientific theories--in this case the insight provided by the oldest traditional dichotomy of Judeo-Christian the directionality of time's arrow or the immanence of time's cycle. Gould follows these metaphors through these three great documents and shows how their influence, more than the empirical observation of rocks in the field, provoked the supposed discovery of deep time by Hutton and Lyell. Gould breaks through the traditional "cardboard" history of geological textbooks (the progressive march to truth inspired by more and better observations) by showing that Burnet, the villain of conventional accounts, was a rationalist (not a theologically driven miracle-monger) whose rich reconstruction of earth history emphasized the need for both time's arrow (narrative history) and time's cycle (immanent laws), while Hutton and Lyell, our traditional heroes, denied the richness of history by their exclusive focus upon time's Arrow.

Genres: Science, Geology, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Popular Science, History Of Science

240 pages, Paperback

First published April 15, 1987

About the author

Stephen Jay Gould was a prominent American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Most of Gould's empirical research was on land snails. Gould helped develop the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary stability is marked by instances of rapid change. He contributed to evolutionary developmental biology. In evolutionary theory, he opposed strict selectionism, sociobiology as applied to humans, and evolutionary psychology. He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.

Many of Gould's essays were reprinted in collected volumes, such as Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb, while his popular treatises included books such as The Mismeasure of Man, Wonderful Life and Full House.
-Wikipedia

Reviews

[Dfordoom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stephen Jay Gould’s Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle is possibly the best popular science book I’ve ever read. Its greatness comes partly from Gould’s genuine feeling for art, culture and history as well as science. It also comes also from his ability to respect the attempts of people in the pre-modern world to make sense of the universe as being both intelligent and valid in their own terms, and his refusal to regard them in a condescending way. The book looks at the history of geology by focusing on three thinkers who devised systematic models of how the earth works, Thomas Burnet, James Hutton and Charles Lyell. Gould shows that the ideas held by these men have been thoroughly misrepresented and misunderstood by those who view the history of geology as a straightforward story of inevitable and continuous progress. It’s a book that tells us a lot about the way humans try to impose order upon the universe and make the universe understandable. A great book.

[Daniel Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this book, Stephen Jay Gould explores two metaphors, two models, that humans use to understand time: time's arrow, the the irreversible, unrepeatable uniqueness of every individual, every event, and every phenomenon, and time's cycle, the fundamental laws and structures that repeat and reappear throughout the universe. This was prompted in his field by the discovery of deep time - of a universe that is not thousands, but rather billions of years old. If the present earth formed over billions of years, how did present structures emerge - as the products of sudden catastrophes or miracles, or as the gradual results of slow, steady change?

In the first chapter, Gould simply posits the scope and intention of his work - he is exploring the development of these metaphors in the writings of 3 British geologists.

In Chapter 2, he explores the Telluris Theoria Sacra of Thomas Burnet. Writing from a theological perspective, Burnet created an image of the earth from the Creation to the End Times, with both parts meeting under Christ's feet.. This captured both the arrow - time flows inexorably as part of salvation history - and the cycle - each stage in the beginning is echoed in a stage at the end. Gould then draws a parallel to the geological work of Nicholas Steno, whose theory for the history of Tuscany has almost the same schema even though his work was more field-based.

In Chapter 3, Gould explores James Hutton's 1795 Theory of the Earth. Hutton's system was based on the belief that not only do objects have material causes (what makes them up) and efficient causes (what event immediately caused the object to exist), but also a final cause/telos (every object has a purpose directed towards human needs). Hutton was confronted with the "paradox of soil" - if soil exists to make the earth productive for human life and agriculture but is produced by a fundamentally destructive process (erosion), then a priori there must be a corresponding creative process to ensure that human civilization continues. For final cause, Hutton insisted that "uplift must restore topography"; "for efficient cause, he devised a world machine that arranged all historical complexity as a cycle of repeating events as regular as the revolution of planets in Newton's system"(p. 79). Because Hutton's universe functions as a perfect balance, it also fundamentally denies history - if things improve, then the system was not perfect; if things get worse, then the system is not perfect. Even fossils are only signs of regional and local variation, not of fundamental biological change - only humans have a special divine creation in the recent past. As Gould notes, this is the most extreme theory of time's cycle in the history of geology.

In Chapter 4, Gould explores the life-work of Thomas Lyell, who was active from the 1820s to the 1870s. Lyell used brilliant rhetoric to promote a theory of uniformitarianism that combined multiple meanings of uniformity. Basically all scientists agreed on uniformity of law (natural laws work the same throughout space and time) and uniformity of process (if a present process can account for a situation, use it instead of trying to imagine some unknown cause as an explanation). To these methodological claims, Lyell added the far more controversial uniformity of rate (processes occur at the same rate throughout history) and uniformity of state (there is no progress or long-term trends in either earth history or biological history, and everything is directionless). Lyell argued that apparent unconformities and rapid changes in biota were due to a lack of preservation, erosion, or other destruction of evidence - there are no catastrophes or mass extinctions. Mammals dominate now because the climate is cooler. If the world were warmer, "The huge iguanadon might reappear in the woods, and the icthysaur in the sea, while the pterodactyl might flit again . . . " (p. 103 - 104). Lyell also proposed that fossil assemblages preserved in sedimentary strata could be relatively dated by comparing their members to the present-day - those more similar to the present would be more recent, and those with fewer modern species would be older. Lyell only admitted to evolution and trends in biology when confronted with decades of paleontological evidence, but still held firm to geological gradualism and directionless evolutionary processes.

Finally, in the conclusion Gould muses on the necessity and aesthetics of both metaphors - time's arrow and time's cycle - for making the natural world comprehensible to humans.

What I love about Gould's writing is how he weaves together so many disciplines - geology, philosophy, history, literary analysis, theology, poetry, the fine arts. I feel like I am walking through a museum, listening to a learned professor or curator reflecting on the themes they are considering (which makes sense, since he was a Harvard professor and curator). Gould weaves these threads together magnificently, and constantly reinforces his thesis throughout the book. I loved the book from beginning to end, and now I want to read more.

[K · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gould debunks what he calls the cardboard version of the history of geological thinking. Fairly heavy-duty philosophical stuff here resulting from his own detective work on the writings of the 17th and 18th century. His style is dense at times, feeling only slightly lighter than pure academic writing, so it's not a quick read but it's pretty interesting.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

GOULD ANALYZES THE ORIGINATORS OF THE CONCEPT OF "GEOLOGICAL TIME"

[NOTE: page numbers refer to the 222-page paperback edition.]

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) wrote in the "Acknowledgements" section of this 1987 book, "The genesis of this book lies in the same conflict and interaction of metaphors---arrows of history and cycles of immanence---that fueled the discovery of deep time in geology... this volume is cobbled together from bits and pieces of time's arrow, quirky and unpredictable moments of my own contingent history... This book is a greatly elaborated and reworked version of the first series of Harvard-Jerusalem lectures, presented at Hebrew University in April 1985."

He states in the first chapter, "Judeo-Christian tradition has struggled to understand time by juggling and balancing two ends of a primary dichotomy about the nature of history... the twin requirements of uniqueness to mark moments of time as distinctive, and lawfulness to establish a basis for intelligibility. At one end of the dichotomy---I shall call it time's arrow---history is an irreversible sequence of unrepeatable events... At the other end---I shall call it time's cycle---events have no meaning as distinct episodes with causal impact upon a contingent history... Apparent motions are part of repeating cycles, and differences of the past will be realities of the future. Time has no direction." (Pg. 10-11)

In his discussion of Thomas Burnet, he notes, "George McCready Price, grandfather and originator of the pseudoscience known to its adherents by the oxymoron 'scientific creationism,' considered Burnet a special threat to his system. Price wished to affirm biblical literalism by an inductive approach based strictly on fieldwork. On the old principle that the enemy within is more dangerous than the enemy without, Price wanted to distance himself as far as possible from men like Burnet, who told their scriptural history of the earth from their armchairs." (Pg. 23-24)

Of James Hutton, he said, "We might still support a weaker version of the empiricist myth if Hutton himself had espoused the mystique of fieldwork, and had attempted later to hide the a priori character of his theory by fudging the derivative character of his crucial observations. At least the ideal would remain intact. Even this version fails before Hutton's own candor. He presents his theory---with pride---as derived by reason from key premises that have no standing in modern science... He then discusses his observations as subsequent confirmations of these ideas." (Pg. 72)

He observes, "Charles Lyell recognized the link between Hutton and Newton, but he also noted an unhappy comparison---the triumph of cosmology versus the limited success of Hutton's world machine.... I dedicate this book to a different view of this discrepancy: time's cycle cannot, in principle, encompass a complex history that bears irreducible signs of time's arrow. Hutton's rigidity is both a boon and a trap. It gave us deep time, but we lost rigidity in the process. Any adequate account of the earth requires both." (Pg. 97)

He argues, "If we equate uniformity with truth and relegate the empirical claims of catastrophism to the hush-hush unthinkable of theology, then we enshrine one narrow version of geological process as true a priori, and we lost the possibility of weighing reasonable alternatives... Once we recover Lyell's substantive objection to intelligible and intelligent catastrophism, we recognize that the real debate was not dogma versus fieldwork, but a conflict between rival empirics rooted in the theme of this book---a conflict of metaphor between time's cycle and time's arrow. Lyell was not the white knight of truth and fieldwork, but a purveyor of a fascinating and particular theory rooted in the steady state of time's cycle. He tried by rhetoric to equate this substantive theory with rationality and rectitude---and he largely triumphed." (Pg. 114-115)

Later, he adds, "I... generally support Lyell's approach for balancing fact and theory in a complex and imperfect world. I just find it deliciously ironic that cardboard history touts Lyell's victory as the triumph of fieldwork, while catastrophists were the true champions of a geological record read as directly seen. Lyell, by contrast, urged that theory... be imposed upon the literal record to interpolate within it what theory expected but imperfect data does not provide." (Pg. 134)

Besides being a highly creative evolutionary theorist, Gould was also a brilliant writer and an engaged "public intellectual." His presence is sorely missed on the scientific and literary scene.

[s · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good if you're sort of vaguely attracted to geology and want a foothold for developing a historical understanding of it as a field. Specifically a history of modern English/Scottish thought about earth-as-totality, structured as a reading of three key figures (Burnet, Hutton, Lyell) that challenges conventional history. Incidentally I found it useful to mentally tack them onto their respective irl friends whom I can contextualize a little better: Newton, Hume, and Darwin.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Forgive me if I expend my time reviewing this fascinating if sometimes dense book not through the linear flight of an arrow nor the circular spinning of a cycle but rather through the perambulation of a parabola that begins with E.B. White's famous essay "The Ring of Time." (and hope that the mixing of so many geometric metaphors does not collapse and bury us all) While watching a young circus horse rider practice her routine trotting around a ring, White writes that he "became painfully conscious of the element of time. ... that time itself began running in circles ... but she was too young to know that time does not really move in a circle at all. ... Everything in her movements, her expression, told you that for her the ring of time was perfectly formed, changeless, predictable, without beginning or end, like the ring in which she was traveling with the horse that wallowed under her." White, however, is saddened by the realization that with each revolution around the ring the inevitable linear passage of time robs the girl of a sliver of her youth and beauty.

This tension between the cycle and arrow of time forms the basis of Gould's analysis of how geologists Burnet, Hutton and Lyell, spanning the 16th to 18th centuries, made important but ultimately limiting advances in our understanding of the earth's age and continental formations because each became prisoner to his own metaphorical lens of reading and interpreting geological formations. In short, they disagreed over whether the earth's surface reflects a linear process of erosion (time's arrow -- a process some believed started with the Great Flood of the Bible) or a cyclical process of regeneration (time's cycle). By conducting a rhetorical analysis of each man's writings with a depth that would impress any scholar of Classical Rhetoric, Gould argues that such dichotomous thinking reveals as much about inherent flaws in allegedly empirical and objective scientific process and about engrained cultural attitudes regarding earth's origins and development as it does about geology. So at its core, this is a book about reading: how geologists "read" the planet, and how Gould reads their "reading" of the planet. If this sounds a tad postmodern, fear not; Gould relies on the same good, old-fashioned close reading of texts that most of us were probably taught in our introductory composition or Literature courses. In the end, Gould argues that neither metaphor is correct or erroneous; rather, both combined provide a more accurate reading of the planet's history.

All of this Gould explains with his usual verbal panache. My only criticism is that Gould seems to be trying to address two different audiences: scholars of scientific history and a general, educated audience. Though for the most part he renders geological theory and practice with a light touch but without oversimplifying it, at times the sheer weight (no pun intended) of the material becomes a bit dense, and repetitive, as he takes great pains to emphasize not only how Burnet, Hutton and Lyell differ but also where they overlap. But then again, the repetition does at times prove helpful for laymen with poor memories (like me) who need reminders of the meaning of key terms like "uniformitarians" and "unconformity." Not a rocky read (groan!)but not always a smooth one either.

Well, I have come to end of my parabola, and whether the connection between White and Gould proved more sturdy preamble or the type of self-indulgent and tangential association we literary types enjoy, I will leave to you to decide. Nonetheless, if I have failed in that regard, I draw comfort in White's own admission at the end of his essay: "It has been ambitious and plucky of me to attempt to describe what is indescribable, and I have failed, as I knew I would. But I have discharged my duty to my society; and besides, a writer, like an acrobat, must occasionally try a stunt that is too much for him."

[James F · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book concentrates on three figures in the history of the discovery of "deep time", Thomas Burnet, James Hutton, and Charles Lyell. It approaches them from two "metaphors", time's arrow (linear time) and time's cycle (cyclical time), as those are distinguished by anthropologists like Mircea Eliade. Gould starts out by saying that Burnet has been cast as a "speculative" "villain" by historians of science, while Hutton and Lyell are seen as the "empirical" "heroes" of modern geology. He tries to correct this impression, by putting Burnet into his context and showing that Hutton and Lyell were not the pure "empirical" geologists they are often presented as.

To begin with the flaws, first of all Gould is hardly a neutral historian in this debate; the "uniformitarian" ideas associated with Hutton and Lyell form a large part of the basis of opposition to his own theory of "punctuated equilibrium." The older historiography of "heroes" and "villains" is something of a straw man, which is no longer practiced by any serious historian of science; apart from elementary textbooks (which are notorious for bad history) his quotations are all from Sir Archibald Geikie's writings in the 1920's. (And in effect, doesn't Gould do the same thing, when he presents Geikie as a "villain" in historiography? Geikie's approach also has its context, in a conservative period when science was under attack, as now, by a resurgence of religious fundamentalism.)

The argument that Hutton and Lyell were not "empirical" because their theories were derived from a priori philosophical ideas -- in particular when Gould points out that Hutton only seriously investigated granite outcrops and unconformities of strata after presenting his hypothesis in his first paper -- sounds very odd to someone who has studied contemporary philosophy of science. Today, it is considered irrelevant whether a hypothesis is conceived from examining data, a priori ideas, reading the Bible, or smoking peyote -- what matters is how that hypothesis is then verified. When Hutton first conceives a hypothesis on the basis of philosophical ideas of "final causation" and then looks for empirical evidence whether it works, he is doing just what modern philosophers say an empiricist science should do.

Again, to criticize Lyell for treating Cuvier and the French catastrophists as advocates of Noah's Flood seems somewhat disingenuous -- they weren't, for the most part, but that is how they were represented in English translation and by their English followers, most notably Lyell's own teacher, Buckland. Rudwick points out that part of Lyell's early motivation for attacking catastrophism was embarrassment at Buckland's Biblical geology, and Gould had read Rudwick's book, which he cites when it agrees with him.

Leaving aside the value judgments, however, the accounts of what the three writers were trying to do, and the philosophical bases of their systems, were very informative. Burnet is rarely treated this fairly; rationalization of the Biblical accounts in terms of natural causes was a step forward from taking them literally as supernatural events, when it was written, just as Thales and Anaximander created science in the first place by rationalizing mythology, not rejecting it. Gould makes it seem reasonable that Lyell, for instance, insisted so long on a "steady state" theory of the Earth, only abandoning it when the evidence could no longer be dismissed as due to gaps in the record and selective preservation, where in the other books I've read recently this seems just an idiosyncrasy.

The book does correct some errors, if it bends the stick too far the other way, and as with all Gould's books, the writing style is very accessible and enjoyable to read. This is a worthwhile book to read in conjunction with Rudwick or other accounts, but not the best choice if you're only reading one book on the subject.

[Zak · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finished this a week or two ago. To me, Stephen Jay Gould is a truly perfect delegate for science in disseminating technical information to laymens. It's not an easy role to play contrary to popular belief, and a lot of people either abuse it or fail to live up to its importance. But every so often, a Carl Sagan or a Neil Degrasse Tyson or a Brian Green (I know, all my other examples are physicists) comes along and frames the most complex ideas in astonishing simplicity without doing a disservice to the science.

This book is a 'philosophy of science' book. The concept is actually very straightforward, though the ideas are not. Gould corners the seminal works of three fathers of modern geology; one villain, Thomas Burnet, and two heroes, James Hutton and Charles Lyell. Every working geologist has heard of these three most important of men, and their legacies are well documented. Or I should say, they're documented - not very well, according to Gould.

The entire book is a convincing attack on what he coins 'textbook cardboard' - oversimplified and romanticized accounts of scientists which unintentionally cram their reputations and legacies into cookie cutter frameworks, like 'creationist', or 'biblical literalist', or 'empirical scientist'. These reinventions too often fail to recognize the underlying complexity and worldviews of the most famous scientists history can name.

I won't give away any of the storylines that Gould paints for each of these three men, but through direct quotation from both the original works and later interpretations, he exposes as imagined the legacies of each, for better or for worse. The chapter on Lyell in particular was both inspiring and eye opening. The Charles Lyell of textbooks is misrepresented as a sort of empirical robot who finds facts and arranges them in the only way they can be arranged, according to the laws of the beloved scientific method.

I haven't mentioned anything about the title, which is the front and center dichotomatic theme that winds its way through the entire book. SJG writes that he had read each of the three landmark geology texts many times before, but it wasn't until he read them within the context of the age old conflict between time's linear arrow and time's immanent cycle that he truly understood the real thrust of each argument. And using direct quotes, he illustrates the truly grand and masterful visions for which each man stood.

More than anything else, this book is a warning of the disillusions of science. All hail hard evidence has its time and its place and is undoubtedly respectable, but too often the world falls victim to over-flattery of the scientific method, and forgets just what sort of being it is actually acting out the process. Man is not a computing robot, he is a visionary with his own biases and his own interpretations. He is flawed, in short, and while holding him to a standard of perfection like the scientific method is unremittingly beneficial for accuracy, projecting that very standard into real human scientists themselves is a mistake with major consequences. And following that, looking back to times predating the scientific revolution we're still experiencing and laughing at ideas deemed 'primitive' is a worthless endeavor that only highlights our own flaws. Gould takes loony ideas that most people would think to crazy for an internet page and contextualizes them, humanizes their authors, and based on those facts, reinterprets their plausibility.

I think I'm going to return to this book in five or maybe ten years. I'm actually going to plan to do it. Modern scientific paradigms in the realm of the philosophy of science deserve to be critiqued, even if only for its unbridled arrogance. I think as I continue to explore everything scientists around the world are currently undertaking, this book will become more and more important.

[Wren · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book as part of my ongoing collection of books about time, fostered by my deep and abiding interest in how we experience time and incorporate it into our ideologies. So, it should not be surprising that the great deal of this book which discusses the history of geology in depth did not interest me nearly as much as the discussion of how our views on time influence our scientific discoveries.

At its core, though, this is a book about metaphor. It is about both how we use metaphor to understand science and how through hypostatization our dominant cultural metaphors influence our science. It is, perhaps, an intriguing and unusual validation of the liberal arts. Gould spends the beginning and ending of the book exploring our culture's dominant ideas about time while devoting the bulk of the book to distilling these views' influence on Thomas Burnett, James Hutton, and Charles Lyell.

While it's not too revolutionary an idea that we require metaphor to intellectually and emotionally metabolize and come to terms with scientific realizations, the idea that these realizations themselves can only come from an attempt to reconcile an analogy with a reality is much more unique and controversial. It perhaps speaks pessimistically of the scientific method, arguing that it is not endemic to the nature of our species, but this is not the conclusion Gould outlines. Instead, he argues that we must learn to be honest with our comprehension of science, and also that we must learn to compromise our structures in order to adhere to reality.

This book can at times be dense, but I definitely think it is worth working through. Personally, I do not much care about the discovery of Deep Time, nor do I believe that most prospective readers of this book would. The geological timescale is something that has become so inimical to both our science and our culture that it is no longer pertinent to question how we found it but rather why we ever thought otherwise. However, Gould has a talent for unearthing the philosophy implicit in scientific work as well as a commitment to uncovering the real history of science. It would do well for all of us to be more skeptical of "cardboard history" as Gould terms it, and this book can serve to elucidate the truth behind the lies we've learned.

Ultimately, this book can be read as a fascinating exploration of how we view data, how be bring our own preconceptions to the study of science, and how we construct a narrative after the fact in our appraisal of history that often does not meet with the actual processes of discovery. Conversely, it can also be read as a rather dry history of geology with some tangential divergences into art and religious analysis. How you approach this book will determine what you get out of it.

[Charlotte]

"Within this constraint of concordance, Burnet followed a strategy that placed him among the rationalists ('good guys' for the future development of science, if we must follow Western-movie scenarios of retrospective history)" (28).
"Burnet's basic position has been advanced by nearly every theistic scientist since the Newtonian revolution: God made it right the first time. He ordained the laws of nature to yield an appropriate history; he needn't intervene later to patch and fix an imperfect cosmos by miraculous alteration of his own laws" (29).

[Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Popular science at its best!

[Dylan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is mostly a meta-historical commentary on the discovery of deep time. Deep time is the idea that earth and cosmic history stretches back into an incomprehensibly long past (billions of years), in contrast to the once-prevailing Biblical view of Earth being about 6,000 years old. Gould ranks the discovery of deep time as one of the most significant contributions to western thought, alongside Copernicus’s heliocentric model of the solar system and Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The discovery of deep time is canonically attributed to the Scottish geologist Charles Lyell, but Gould argues that the history surrounding Lyell and the discovery of deep time is shrouded in a revisionist mist which has impacted geologic thought in the modern. Lyell’s primary contribution is that gradual change over vast amount of time can shape Earth’s geology, but subsequent historical revision has held too tightly to that idea, disenfranchising valid arguments of extreme change over shorter periods of time. Gould explores the discovery of deep time by looking at 3 canonical contributors from the 18th and 19th centuries, with his primary thesis being those metaphors regarding history, specifically time’s arrow and time’s cycle, are the most useful dichotomy to understand the real story underlying this greatest contribution of geology.

[Molly Kent · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gould's Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle was a fascinating review of the villains and heroes of geologic time. While the prose was confusing and repetitive, the overall content provided for a fast-paced read with humor and sophistication. It confused me at times, but also deeply interested me. The connections between the three main thinkers of the book evoke questions of religion's place in science, if at all. All in all, Gould does an excellent job of covering his bases while leaving us with something to ponder!

[Adz]

Lot went over my head I think. It's largely a book concerned with close reads of 18th and 19th century geology texts. As a more general reader with an interest in Science Technology Studies and historically grounded philosophical engagements with temporality and evolution this was not quite what I was looking for. I've been recommended to read Gould by various folks and I've enjoyed his short form public facing stuff. This one just wasn't a match but perhaps I picked the wrong book of his to start with.

[André Bernhardt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ich weiß nicht, wie das Buch in meine Bibliothek gelang, aber es lag da schon Jahre rum und da ich mir wohl irgendwann mal was dabei gedachte habe, habe es jetzt mal gelesen. Allerdings ist es dann doch eher für Geologen interessant, behandelt es die Anfänge der Geologie zur Zeit Darwins und die Unterscheidung zwischen Zeitkreis und Zeitpfeil. Wer das jetzt schon spannend findet, der wird bei der Lektüre sicherlich gut aufgehoben sein, allen anderen empfehle ich das doch genau zu überdenken.

[Ziyad Bawedan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Narrow 4, although did enjoyed the process (thanks to my major that helped me to grasp what Gould criticize from the beginning). If you gonna pick up this book for the entertainment purposes of evolutionary thought, this is not that kind of book. It's more research-based (and a bit of reactionary) about the dogma behind popular geology, and evolutionist-bias narrative storytelling in any kind of natural science classroom.

[David Haberlah · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear and insightful synthesis of the ontological origins of modern geology, stratigraphy, palaeontology and geomorphology. I am surprised nobody here, including the author, ever references the spiral. A spiral represents both the directional arrow of history and evolution, as well as the cycling nature of phenomena based on natural laws. And don’t we experience space-time expansion on planet Earth in a helical forward movement?!

[Dave Clarke · Rating 2 out of 5]

A hard slog of a book, lacking his usual charming style, this reads as written, as a homage to a founder of geology, whilst also exposing the flaws that those foundations built and how they still skew the edifice …

[Annie Sand · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honestly one of the best books I’ve ever read. It’s poetic, funny, heartfelt, interdisciplinary, and overwhelmingly smart. It was a pleasure and a privilege to watch Gould’s mind work.

[El-Jahiz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic, no geologist ought to miss!

[Paul Hackley · Rating 1 out of 5]

boring!

[Neil Haave · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is another of Gould’s many attempts to provide support for his theory of punctuated equilibrium. The theory that evolution remains for long periods in equilibrium where little novelty is produced but this equilibrium is punctuated by bursts of speciation. This theory is in conflict with neo-Darwinians understanding of evolution proceeding gradual in a uniformitarian manner. Gradualism is a central tenet of the evolutionary synthesis established in the middle of the of the 20th century by consensus.

Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle is Gould’s examination for the resistance to his theory of punctuated equilibrium (PE). An examination as to why most biologists cling to gradualism and view PE as anathema. To do this Gould examines the beginnings of our understanding of geological deep time and notes that two metaphors have competed with each other to describe the passing of time: arrow vs cycle. Gould’s thesis is that the two views have to be held in dichotomy in order to provide a fuller understanding of deep time. To investigate this thesis he examines 3 key texts in the development of deep time: Sacred Theory of the Earth by Thomas Burnett (1680-1690), Theory of the Earth by James Hutton (1795) & Principles of Geology by Charles Lyell (1830-1833).

Burnett is not the villain many have caricatured. He truly tried to adhere to natural explanation in his narrative of Earth’s history biblically constrained. His was in the tradition of scholarship of his time in which the Bible was used to fill in the gaps not explainable by nature. Burnett is not the antithesis of Stern (Tuscan geologist & contemporary). Both invoked metaphor of cycle & arrow: cycles occur (periods) but details of each cycle differ (arrow). Akin to a wheel traveling forward. There is a relationship to DNA & evolution (I think) with each generation (ontogeny & phylogeny). This may explain the teleological feel of evolution (I think).

One of the reasons Hutton is misunderstood as being historical is that Playfair portrayed him as such in his translation/abstract of him. Nobody until Gould has gone back to closely read Hutton to realize that his true commitment to the ahistorical time’s cycle because Hutton’s treatise is long & difficult to read. Before Hutton there was no conception of Earth’s ability to form new mountains & valleys. It was thought that the Earth formed only once & then only erosion occurs. In contrast Hutton hypothesized cycles of geological decay & uplift, not an arrow of soil erosion. Uplift able to return eroded topography (igneous rock). Contrary to the Hutton myth, he formulated his theory prior to sufficient gathered evidence. Hutton denies time’s arrow by denying narrative in history because of commitment to perfection of time’s cycle. History is not due to the particulars, the inconsistencies, the imperfections. Hutton’s cyclical theory of the Earth is perfect & hence is ahistorical.

The biggest contribution by Lyell was to forcefully argue that the same geological forces at work in the present have always been at work (uniformitarianism). Gould is interested in dispelling the Lyell myth so that people will understand the distinction between catastrophism in Lyell’s day (not simply biblical as has been caricatured) & Gould’s punctuated equilibrium. He wants to correct the mistaken assumption that his theory supports creationism. He wants to create an intellectual climate that is more accepting of PE. Lyell would not accept Darwin’s claims of evolution because they required change. Lyell’s uniformity demanded no change & therefore no evolution. Lyell (uniformitarian) & Agassiz (catastrophist) engaged in a scientific debate over the nature of change on Earth: does it have direction (arrow) or does it cycle to nowhere. Both sides ascribed to the same methods of science but postulated different theories about the nature of inferred changes from geological strata & present erosion. Catastrophists read the geological record literally whereas Lyell imposed his uniformitarian theory onto the geological record. Lyell finally accepted Darwin’s evolution because it was the most minimal retreat from his uniformitarian thesis. Darwin’s theory was gradualism not catastrophism which was appealed to be the progressionists. But there still seems to be a conflation of evolution with progress. Darwin abandoned the uniformity of state but retained the uniformity of rate & mechanism.

Deep time & evolution embody both time’s cycle & time’s arrow. Cycles of process, cycles of the permanence of natural laws leave their mark on the contingencies of history (time’s arrow) in convergent evolution. Organisms unique to their time/habitat but the same physical principles constrain any adaptation. Time’s arrow produces homology whereas time’s cycle produces analogy. Embracing both leaves room for Gould’s punctuated equilibrium as the only mechanism, not uniformity of state & rate, needed to explain Earth’s history.

[Nicole Geary · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finished this book partly for a research paper and partly because I love geology. This was my first read by Stephen Jay Gould, and though parts of the writing were intriguing, I felt large parts were also fancifully scientifically metaphoric without bringing it back to layperson's terminology. I spent lots of time making notes in order to research his meanings, which hindered my progress through Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle - like taking a lot of bulky gear along on what is meant to be a quick hike. I kept having to stop and unpack along the way, to assess what supplies I had, to recollect them, and then continue on the journey.

That being said, the history in the book was fantastic. I learned a lot about who came before Hutton and Lyell insofar as creating theories about how the earth operates and how old it is. I considered myself a fan of Charles Lyell before this book, but am now really excited about James Hutton's discoveries and his complete stubbornness according to Gould. The development of uniformitarianism is worth reading about and Gould has other papers on the topic. I find this all fascinating and of course, love reading a good story about geology, but this book focuses on how time affects how we think about geology.

[Chris Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm generally a fan of Gould's writing but for some reason this book just didn't interest me. It isn't bad, per se, and if you're into the history of science (the history of modern geology in particular) then there might be something in here to interest you. Me, I think I'll stick to Gould's writings on biology.

[Miles · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun book about the way two competing views of the nature of time have influenced scientific ideas, especially geology. He also points out how these views of time reemerge in many of our other efforts to conceptualize the world, and also in the work of an incredible, eccentric, artist-of-sorts, James Hampton. He focuses on a few key founding texts of the field of geology and focuses on the way their theses were fundamentally divided on their conception of time. It is also interesting for its examples about how theories become distorted historically and are made to serve purposes quite distinct from their actual content.

[Suncan Stone]

Once he writes about the things he actually thinks he knows too much about he becomes slightly less errrr, how can I put this, errr.. interesting. But then at the Last article, which doesn't deal with geology he becomes more interesting once more... you sort of get the feeling you are discovering something new alongside him while with his texts on geology he is just giving you a rather dull lecture. Still think his best book is Ever since Darwin, so if you want to start with Gould start there and not here unless a geology major.

[Keriann · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gould's a weirdo, but so far the book is pretty good so far. I'm not looking forward to the pseudo-young earth ending though. Like I said, Gould's a weirdo.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gotta reread this book because I've lost everything I used to know, but I do remember being totally enamored of it.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book, but not as intresting or as informative to me as his more natural history/evolutionary theory books. More speculative, I thought.

[Christy Porter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful complement to studying the Romantics and Deep Ecology.