Reply to comment

Danielle pointed out a really fabulous quote that I remember underlining upon reading, regarding Mayr's belief that we don't need to question such overwhelming evidence. This seems to defy everything we have discussed in class, but conversely, Mayr has in fact done research of his own to confirm Darwinian theories. I suppose he means that during the execution of his research, he wouldn't dare question that he would reach a conclusion different from what Darwin has proposed - this would be "irrational."

During our discussion on Thursday, we approached the idea of truth existing or not existing. If no one is capable of fully recounting a story or event, is it fair to say it happened? If a story cannot ever be reproduced, how can we be so sure it existed in the first place? Eating a sandwich, for example, will never be the same process for one person as it is for another. A simple truth still contains these subjective cracks that we are not capable of always pinpointing. We take so much truth for granted, like Sarah eating a sandwich, that we forget what it would be like to replicate this story. No one will report the act of sandwich-eating the same; so does truth about it exist? My answer is yes - the objective truth does in fact exist, it is just beyond our reach as humans to recall and subconsciously agree on. We will all point out different details that appeal to us or catch our attention when recounting the story of sandwich-eating (crumbs fell, for instance) but there is no way to unify our responses with the actual truth. I am coming to realize that stories are our way of getting closer to this truth, but are in no way indicative of everything that actually occurred.