Reply to comment

I’ve been thinking about Professor Grobstein’s amusing recital of the “The Point” on Thursday and our brief discussion about whether or not science has to have a point.  Far be it from me to announce that all scientists are working toward some “point” or final goal, but it seems as though they do all share a driving force, curiosity.  As Shannon points out, “It is an inevitable part of exploration.”  However, aside from the initial drive towards scientific discovery, there is another element to “having a point” that I think varies from scientist to scientist. 

Whether or not the scientist tries to apply their discovery, theory, or observation to a bigger issue assigns their “point” a different level of significance.  Mayr is a prime example.  "What Evolution Is" gives the reader an in-depth picture of how evolution works, what “evidence” supports it and how some things just don’t fit as well as Mayr would like.  On top of all of this though, at least I feel, that Mayr is trying to convert people to his total acceptance of Darwinian Evolution.  He believes on some level that it is “true” and thus wants the reader to also understand its importance.  In a way, this is Mayr’s “point.”  He is trying to make an ironclad case for evolution as the only explanation for the way things are, and also convince the reader that it is in fact the only reasonable explanation.  While many scientists do not attempt to apply their findings directly to the social consciousness as Mayr does, it is useful to examine the possible “points” they may be trying to get across.

Elise