Reply to comment

Dennett’s comments early on about the differences between the Darwinian Revolution and the Copernican Revolution have had me wondering which has been the move successful approach.  Part of me likes the Copernican Revolution because it is so much simpler.  There was never a debate on such a grand scale because by the time the debate really got started the scientific community was united.  On the other hand the Darwinian Revolution still has people very messily divided.  One of the things that I have always loved about the sciences is how everything is interconnected.  A scientist can’t just know his or her own field (biology, chemistry, ect.).  Breakthroughs have to be made by looking at something from the perspective of each scientific field.  Hence why having a scientific community is so critical.  I was thinking of the ways in which these two revolutions would have worked in the scientific community, and suddenly the messiness didn’t bother me so much. 

            The Darwinian Revolution has been so much more of a discussion than the Copernican.  Having the fighting out in the open allows the process to affect not only the biological sciences but also all other aspects of culture.  It may be messy but the mess brings together concepts and ideas that would never have been joined otherwise.