Reply to comment

In our section with Professor Dalke, we tried to find the key differences between humanity, social science, and science. We realized the differences may be much more slight than we had thought- that a lot overlapped- and that it was far more difficult to find the distinguishing factors than we had thought it would be. I began to wonder about these differences.. about why some of us feel more comfortable with subjects that more often contain "right" and "wrong" answers, and a kind of concreteness, and why others of us would rather choose a subject where our own interpretation carries far more worth. I think this class especially shows the overlap between science and the humanities.. Professor Grobstein telling us that, from the scientific perspective, we have choices, and stories, and that we can make our own decisions and judgements...that there are no right answers, only less wrong ones. I'm a biology major, but don't enjoy the often tight confines of science and math courses... maybe there is some comfort in knowing that you can get a pre-set answer- that there is an answer, and that all your work has an immediate reward at the end if you're "right", but... it seems more rewarding to be able to think around a subject, for as long as you'd like, and to be able to think whichever way you've come to think, and come up with a story all your own.. it seems more productive- for yourself, and, for other people to build off of. It's not an answer... just the point you've gotten to.. and that leads to a lot more room for thinking and newer, better, less wrong stories.

I was reading back through some of Mayr's earlier chapters, and found something interesting. On page 91, Mayr's discusses the seventeen principles of inheritance. Number one says that "genes cannot be modified through the environment." I think this is a little confusing.. it seems that smoking, or exposure to the sun, can modify and damage genes... maybe he's just talking about gene modification not being able to be passed down by inheritance, but it seems like a big generalization to make. I think that Mayr's says a lot based on what has been said before, and compiles it together, but sometimes makes claims without backing them up. But, as many people have said in class.. he probably wouldn't have sold as many books if he had expressed doubt.. or maybe it just would have targeted a very different audience. Last week, I posted about how Mayr's needs to say that this is the truth- that this is correct- and that maybe his need to say it so explicitly shows some uncertainty. Throughout the book Mayr's refers to people he quotes as "famous geneticists" and famous other-fields..it's interesting that he needs to add in the word famous to validate the quotes, which he often says are so correct and so right.. maybe there is some hidden doubt there.