Re: On The Darwin Year

Reading what John wrote I first want to say that agree with almost everything in his analysis of Darwin’s work and its context in the history of science. I just choose to raise two different perspectives for the discussion.

The first point is based on the perspective of political philosophy which I learned long ago.

I actually learned it so long ago that I can’t remember who said it but I’ve heard it in the context of nationality. The claim took some time getting used to but now it is so common sense that I can’t understand how I tried to rationalize things without it. It is this: A nation is a group of people that agree to believe the same lie.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there is no truth to the assumed history of the scientific community or that there is no truth to the stories that bond any national or other group together.

What I’m saying is that we all need myth. Scientists are no different than other people in this regard. What makes us a community is the agreement to leave the historical accuracy at some point and accept the same story, same heroes, same theories, same grounds for discussion and same questions to be answered.

In a sense the scientific community is no more rational then a group of people that meet each other and decide that they arrived from the moon. I’m not saying it as a criticism - I do believe that we need to choose grounds for common dialogue and if for most Darwin is more of a symbol than others then by all means we should celebrate the Darwin year.

The second point is focused more on the philosophy of science.

What makes a scientific revolution? What is that kind of revelation that influence the way scientists think for generation after the specific person is long gone and his outstanding revelations of that time are even a little outdated.

The answer that is probably common to the Great Man Approach and to the Zeitgeist approach and it is the new possibility that a person and his work opens for the development of the entire scientific field.

If you happen to be the one that doesn’t just discover new facts but discover new way of explanation and thinking that enable others to explain better their own research then you’re probably going to be remembered in the history of science forever.

Darwin acted at a time when a new perspective was badly needed. If what he gave naturalists is the idea of branching and this idea came at a time when they were in serious need for this new way of thinking than it is no surprise he is still so widely respected. It is never just the scientific discovery - it is always that ability to move all research forward due to that scientific discovery and Darwin open a new path for everyone.

If I take the question of what takes one scientist, Darwin in this case, and make a symbol of out him, from another angel then I need to argue that geniuses is often the ability to do that one thing that makes all the other elements that were developing on their own merge.

After all even John argues Darwin did a great work even if he “just” put everything together in the right place. Having all the pieces of the puzzle staring you in the face without able to create a whole picture out of them is usually not the characteristic of a major scientific breakthrough.

Putting everything together in a way that takes knowledge from various lines of work and allow them to “talk” to each other so that the whole scientific community was able to communicate and evolve is a sign of greatness or maybe just great timing. If we think about it the branching of the biologist community changed to a great deal after Darwin and this is an indication that he was the right place at the right time offering the right tools and the right perspective.

If he did just that Darwin deserves our eternal gratitude.

So... what do you think? Please leave me a comment.