Hello everyone, and my senior paper

For obvious reasons, factual accuracy is not relevant to opinions.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Seems like he wanted to introduce himself and talk about his paper.He also let on a little about why he's writing the paper: he thinks the history of science is interesting, perhaps even more interesting and important than the science itself. But that is just his opinion, and although it is the apparent reason for his writing the paper, he has said nothing to suggest he plans on using this as some sort of argument in his report (where it would be completely out of place anyway).I just don't know what's getting everyone so bent out of shape.Can't a man have an opinion?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I will check stuff out and reply another day...too busy with things to sit on here right now. I have gotten 6 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours...

Your ideas lack a target. I would hazard a guess that for some young teenage girls the history of Justen Beber's discography is more important than the history of science, or even biology itself. What each person finds more interesting is just a matter of opinion, and one that they are free to hold.When you say that "A history of science course does a lot more than a biology course", what does it do a lot more of? Will a history of science class help you to properly set up a PCR? Will a history of science class help you optimize an ELISA assay? Will reading "Origin of Species" help you understand the the flow of electrons in the Kreb's Cycle?This seems to be the weakness in your thesis so far. What I would hope to see from your paper is specifics as to why studying the history of science is important. I fully agree that the history of science is absolutely fascinating and a very rewarding journey. In fact, I think most people here would agree as well.Good luck!!

Heartily agree. I have been reading about and studying the history of Science for over 30 years and have barely scratched the surface.

I'm glad that we haven't scared you away with all our criticism. It is intended to be constructive.Six hours in forty-eight? Yeah, go to sleep.

I like to say, "Well rested is well tested."

I don't think that stuff is part of the paper. The paper is about Darwin. His ideas about the importance of history have to do with the Evolution v. Creationism debate. At least as I understand his clarification in later messages.

But that's not the purpose of his paper; if it were, then that's what he'd be writing about.But he hasn't set out to argue for the importance of the history of science as a discipline; he has set out to understand Charles Darwin based on his writings and the changes he made to those writings.

Hi Kevin!Your idea for a paper sounds very interesting. Some replies here already contain good ideas about how you might shape it. I'm anxious to see more discussion along these lines. Unfortunately, some of your statements have led the discussion in the direction of something like, "Science vs. Science History: Which is 'Better'?", which I agree is relevant to your paper, but a very silly question in general ... and you seem to be arguing for the general case.In the interest of getting on to more interesting and potentially enlightening discussion, would you agree with these statements?:"Although the history of science can be helpful for understanding scientific concepts, it's not required.""The relative value of technical scientific knowledge, and knowledge of science's history, depend upon what you aim to accomplish with the knowledge."