What is Truth? Note the capital, as perhaps that's a hint. It has been called many things, as far as I am aware. It has been called, absolute, eternal, ultimate, impossible. Some might consider it to be the final word to end all arguments, 'this is the truth and so it must be.' Some might consider it to be synonymous with Fact, something to be trusted implicitly. Yet others will simply say that it is an impossible value, one that cannot exist. While I can appreciate all of these arguments, I find myself holding firmly to another theory altogether. Truth is a name. It is a human construction, designed to describe one's own, personal, beliefs.

From all the discussion and statements uttered during the first two days, one quote in particular stuck out to me. Professor Grobstein said something along the lines, "In the movies, you see the scientist running out of the room screaming 'I was right! I was right!' in elation. What scientists want to prove most is that what they were thinking--and what everyone else in the world was thinking--was wrong. This statement made me incredibly happy. It gave me his feeling that I usually get when I am about to go on a long vacation to a new town in a different state, as though life is moving around me at a barreling pace, and whisks me along in a hopeful and caring wind. However, this feeling ended very soon.

 There are so many different levels of "the truth." There is what we consider to be unmoving, constant truths that are primarily based on life experience (the sun will rise in the morning, if I burn myself it will hurt); there are more individual truths based on belief (there is a God, there is something after life here on Earth); there are also truths of personal interpretation (no two recollections of an event are identical, each person has their own lens of processing). And we use the same word- truth, which Paul tells us actually doesn't exist- to describe all of these things. The "truth" is very central to our society and culture.

One of the things that I found most intriguing was this idea that there is no such thing as truth. But I guess that really only pertains to that which is related to science. I was seeing "truth" in its broader spectrum of everyday usage, but in those instances, such as when it correlates to honesty, I would claim that there is such a thing as truth. For an individual, in situations that they themselves live through, there can be a definite yes or no statement relevant to the situation in which something can be proved.

 I was very interested in our class discussion on Thursday about truth and the idea that nothing can ever be proven true.  In my Biology class we recently read an article on truth in science and how common it is for scientists to edit their results in order to publish something of significance.  In the final lines of the article, the author questions the scientific method and states “Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved.

I enjoyed the discussion in class on Thursday. Even though I'm a very science oriented person and was somewhat frustrated when Professor Grobstein questioned why he wasn't walking "down" if the Earth is round, I still appreciated the fact that he was asking questions and getting us to think about looking at facts/assumptions more abstractly. I hadn't really thought about the idea that a hypothesis or theory could never be "true." However, after class on Thursday and further thought, it makes perfect sense that something could never be "true." If something was true, then that would mean that this belief or theory would never have the opportunity to change/develop/advance.

I think there are so many reasons why Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the greatest ever conceived and developed.  There's the story behind it, the Beagle voyage, the social implications, Darwin's reluctance to publish, which is pretty incredible.  There's also the fact that the intellectual rigor and experimentation Darwin applied to his theory, spending years testing his theory in every way he possibly could, which is one of the reasons Darwin is so representative of how science and scientists should be.  But I've always been attracted to how the theory of evolution is so beautifully applicable to fields outside of biology.  There's now a field of psychology referred to as evolutionary psychology, it has affected anthropologists, doctors, scientists,

 While reading Darwin, I came across a statement which I did not entirely agree with.  He says, " Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being."