Reply to comment

one thing to keep in mind is that mayr is writing a history of science. he's writing about the discoveries scientists have made overtime about the evolutionary process. there are darwin's questions and geneticists' answers, for example. so mayr's writing about theories that have not been disproven after decades. he's writing about what is accepted as truth in science. he also writes about what has been disproved. so he doesn't really need to make space for ambiguity in this text. he's not doing research that may not hold up in the future. he doesn't need to write, "i didn't do this experiment" or "this is not conclusive;" he's writing about theories that have been agreed upon. this stuff is pretty close to right.

i think it's important for intellectuals and others to play devil's advocate with themselves. everyone on here expresses the same views about mayr. how could those views be refuted?

marquise de merteuil