Abstract
Whitman (1998) claims that Friedrich Hayek's theory of cultural evolution was not Panglossian. Denis's (2002) refutation relies on an overbroad definition of the term Panglossian, a misunderstanding of the implications of group selection theory, and an incomplete understanding of the nested character of evolutionary processes in Hayek's approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Block, W. (1996) “Hayek's Road to Serfdom.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 12: 339-65.
Denis, A. (2002) “Was Hayek a Panglossian Evolutionary Theorist? A Reply to Whitman.” Constitutional Political Economy 13: 275-85.
Hayek, F. A. (1988) The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ransom, G. (1996) “The Significance of Myth and Misunderstanding in Social Science Narrative: Opening Access to Hayek's Copernican Revolution in Economics.” Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http:// www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayekmyth.htm on May 13, 2002.
Whitman, D. G. (1998) “Hayek contra Pangloss on Evolutionary Systems.” Constitutional Political Economy 9: 45-66.
Wilson, D. S., and Sober, E. (1994) “Reintroducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17(4): 585-608.
Wilson, D. S., and Sober, E. (1998) Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Whitman, D.G. Hayek Contra Pangloss: A Rejoinder. Constitutional Political Economy 14, 335–338 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COPE.0000003862.17944.d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COPE.0000003862.17944.d0