4 ms·

I’ve noticed an interesting trend. Pick any field X, from archeology to zoology. There either is now a “computational X” or there soon will be. And it’s widely

by lacker 10y ago

I’ve noticed an interesting trend. Pick any field X, from archeology to zoology. There either is now a “computational X” or there soon will be. And it’s widely viewed as the future of the field. I was dubious about this particular example and searched for [computational zoology]. There's nothing really there, except for a Craig Thompson making a similar "X could be Zoology in Computational X" claim. Computational Zoology is certainly not viewed as the future of zoology. https://www.google.com/search?q="computational+zoology" https://www.google.com/search?q="computational+zoology" Why make this precise claim without checking if it's true? Just an odd way to write an essay. Overall this essay reads like a long, long, long laundry list of features of the Wolfram Language and the Many Wolfram-Branded Products With Many Features, rather than an explanation of "how to teach computational thinking". It's like I wrote an essay "How to use Google for Education", found a thousand educational pages on the internet, and wrote a story in which I googled each one.

dvtv75 10y ago
My first reaction to it was "Oh, it's an infomercial." Do you think we get Sun'n'Run if we order now?
a_bonobo 10y ago
Disclaimer: I work in bioinformatics It's a bit of a weird thing to say that 'computational zoology' will be a field since zoology itself (and botany FWIW) has become 'computational zoology'. Instead of comparing the way an arm looks or counting the number of stamen to delineate species, you now use molecular markers (SNPs, SSRs, gene presence/absence) to distinguish species, and you do that using computers instead of your magnifying glass. A recent example would be that 'giraffes are 4 species' paper - traditional zoologists had them down as one species based no the way they look, but the computer (DNA analysis) says they're four different ones. Biology is really shifting away from the lab to the computer - people who used to do 100% lab-based work now do 50% computer-based, 50% lab-based work (mileage may vary).
- lacker 10y ago
  Hmm. I guess it's not an example that helps my point, then - even if it's not called "computational zoology", you're basically saying zoology is moving in that direction. Ah well. "Computational archaeology" is a thing, but it doesn't seem like it's the future of archaeology. IANAA of course ;-) I'm just going off of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_archaeology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_archaeology
cvs268 10y ago
>> I was dubious about this particular example and searched for [computational zoology]. >> There's nothing really there ... Not anymore :) :) Right now the 1st result in https://www.google.com/search?q=%22computational+zoology%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22computational+zoology%22 is some guys on HN talking about how "Computational Zoology" is certainly NOT viewed as the future of zoology! http://imgur.com/a/dW4kx http://imgur.com/a/dW4kx

by lacker 10y ago

dvtv75 10y ago

My first reaction to it was "Oh, it's an infomercial." Do you think we get Sun'n'Run if we order now?

a_bonobo 10y ago

Disclaimer: I work in bioinformatics It's a bit of a weird thing to say that 'computational zoology' will be a field since zoology itself (and botany FWIW) has become 'computational zoology'. Instead of comparing the way an arm looks or counting the number of stamen to delineate species, you now use molecular markers (SNPs, SSRs, gene presence/absence) to distinguish species, and you do that using computers instead of your magnifying glass. A recent example would be that 'giraffes are 4 species' paper - traditional zoologists had them down as one species based no the way they look, but the computer (DNA analysis) says they're four different ones. Biology is really shifting away from the lab to the computer - people who used to do 100% lab-based work now do 50% computer-based, 50% lab-based work (mileage may vary).

lacker 10y ago
Hmm. I guess it's not an example that helps my point, then - even if it's not called "computational zoology", you're basically saying zoology is moving in that direction. Ah well. "Computational archaeology" is a thing, but it doesn't seem like it's the future of archaeology. IANAA of course ;-) I'm just going off of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_archaeology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_archaeology

cvs268 10y ago

>> I was dubious about this particular example and searched for [computational zoology]. >> There's nothing really there ... Not anymore :) :) Right now the 1st result in https://www.google.com/search?q=%22computational+zoology%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22computational+zoology%22 is some guys on HN talking about how "Computational Zoology" is certainly NOT viewed as the future of zoology! http://imgur.com/a/dW4kx http://imgur.com/a/dW4kx