This winter break, I have planned to do so many things: work on writing up the research I did this semester, study math for the next semester (I’m taking advanced algebra, so I need to review my basics), study for Putnam and the math GRE (I figure studying for the Putnam should cover the GRE, however), work out and make a sane work out schedule for next semester, figure out how I’m going to get the money to pay for getting my wisedom teeth removed (six!), and entertain my uncle and aunt who are coming to visit. I also want to redesign this site and put up more material, like my bookmarks (which I desperately need to sort), learn several programs/languages, setup a system to auto archive all my emails, and learn how to draw, but those are all secondary goals. Looks like I’ll be pretty busy.
Possibly relevant posts:
This Thanksgiving, at a bookstore in the mall with an otherwise appalling lack of good books, I discovered a relatively new book by Stephen Jay Gould. I had already spent too much money to buy it, so I ordered it from the school library. It is entitled “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” and is an attempt to show how the Darwinian evolutionary theory has been revised in a way that preserves the underlying three principles– agency, efficacy, and scope– but expands them to answer serious deficiencies, such as punctuated equilibrium (a phenomenon of which Gould was a co-discoverer).
The book is written to an audience of Gould’s peers– he himself is a paleontologist– in the biological sciences, so I can’t claim to understand too much of the details. Despite this, it is an amusing read. For instance, he spends many pages elaborating on a conversation between Falchoner and Darwin on the similarities of the possible future development of Darwin’s evolutionary theory to the historical development of the Duomo of Milan. The Duomo of Milan is one of those cathedrals which was developed over the course of centuries, so has become a pastiche of architectural styles, while maintaining an underlying, guiding motif; at least that is Darwin’s interpretation. In Falchoner’s interpretation, the Duomo of Milan has become much more than what those who first started its construction intended, to the point where the foundation has been overshadowed by the additions of others. So, Darwin believed his theory would survive through the ages with only relatively minor changes, while Falchoner believed that Darwin’s contribution, although unquestionably the foundation of all the work to follow, was destined for drastic changes. At any rate, Gould’s take on this whole `argument’— if two lines of correspondence can be so mined for connotations– is that Falchoner won, and the intent of the book (a tome, really), is to prove this in excruciating detail 
Possibly relevant posts: