Reply to comment

Having had a course with Paul before, I knew vaguely what to expect in terms of the types of discussions we would be having, but at times I was surprised by the direction our discussions took, and my reactions to them. One of the above posts mentions a frustration with the lack of primary source articles/research when discussing our topics, but I really enjoyed being able to talk about science in a more philosophical way. Research only gets one so far, and really, no research is done without the human component, without looking for something in particular to back up your own ideas. That's one of the biggest problems today, having scientists admit that they do, in fact, have some sort of agenda in their research.

The beginning of the semester, as we were all still getting used to the class format, was an incredibly frustrating experience, both because I felt like I was being closed-minded, and because others seemed closed-minded. We all seemed to be very comfortable in our own ideas, unwilling to truly consider those of others. As the semester progressed, our discussions took a more positive note, allowing us to actually begin considering other viewpoints and learning that there is, often, no right answer. There may even be no wrong answer, just one we like less.

I think this flexibility of thought, and allowance for ambiguity, will make us better scientists in the future.