Reply to comment

I feel that some “stories” about science are in fact truth.  For instance, men can’t have babies and women can; isn’t that science? Since last week, I can stop thinking about Paul’s theory about telling stories and how he doesn’t tell stories in order for other people to believe in them.  However, if he is telling and exposing the class to some of the stories he has come across, doesn’t that make him believe in them? I believe so. I feel that, as in Mary’s book, Paul has his own strategy of making others believe in what he believes in, which, according to me, is not believing in anything, but it is still using stories to make sense of things that we are surrounded by. . . If he doesn’t believe in stories but believes that they are useful, isn’t he contradicting himself by believing in them at same time because he finds them useful?

Furthermore, during the discussion on Thursday, about which field is more accurate, I did not agree with one of my peers.  I remember that she claimed that history was accurate, at least more than science, but like I mentioned before, there are things about evolution and science that are in fact accurate.  For instance, first you are a baby, then you are a child, then an adolescent, and so on. Isn’t that accurate?  I mean, in history we never know who is really telling the truth; at least in science, whether we know it all or not, we know what is important so far.