Daniel cooked for years in some of New York's top American, Italian and French restaurants - starting at the age of 13, when he began staging at the legendary restaurant Chanterelle. He spent nearly a year working on organic farms in Europe, where he harvested almonds and Padron peppers in Spain, shepherded a flock of more than 200 sheep in Italy, and made charcuterie in France. When not working on, thinking about, cooking and eating food, he blows off steam (and calories) as an instructor of capoeira, the Afro-Brazilian martial art.
Science depends on facts. It also depends on reason. But fact and reason alone cannot explain how science works. The examples chosen all had some compelling support and serious shortcomings. Part of the answer may lie in the sociology of groups. Another part lies in simple faith: faith that future scientists will address a theory's shortcomings. Darwin needed an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion and a mechanism for the preservation of traits (see Mendel and Darwin ) . Wegener needed a mechanism for Continental Drift. Galileo needed an explanation for the lack of stellar parallax and the poor performance of his model (see Galileo's Battle for the Heavens ) . It is not only the community that requires faith. The champions of these new theories require faith in their ideas, even when facts contradict their hypotheses. In each case above, there were facts which when combined with the current assumptions of the time clearly contradicted their hypotheses. None of these scientists let those facts get in the way. Paul Feyerabend, a modern philosopher of science, presents a similar view, where he argues that science is sometimes required to work "against the facts". His key example was how the heliocentric system made less sense than a geocentric system during Galileo's time. One irony missed by discussions of science and religion is how much both depend on faith.