3 ms·
From this description I wouldn't buy this book. It is focusing on a bunch of minor issues rather than the main problem. Biomed researchers only come up with vag
by nonbel 10y ago
From this description I wouldn't buy this book. It is focusing on a bunch of minor issues rather than the main problem. Biomed researchers only come up with vague "A makes B go up/down" hypotheses. This is not because biology is more complicated than physics. It is 100% a culture and training issue.
https://bml.bioe.uic.edu/BML/Stuff/Stuff_files/biologist%20fix%20radio.pdf https://bml.bioe.uic.edu/BML/Stuff/Stuff_files/biologist%20f...
https://meehl.dl.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua1696/f/074theorytestingparadox.pdf https://meehl.dl.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua1696/f/074theoryte...
- return0 10y agoAgree with that. The problem is not just the inaccurate answers, but the questions are often ill-thought as well. Life scientists often make correlations from molecules to behavior or phenotype, an inference that spans many many orders of spatial magnitude and a gazillion of complex processes. There is just not enough of incentive for systematic bottom-up approaches, as the average grant size is made to fit this kind of hypotheses. It's more culture than training, or rather, training is a consequence of the culture of the field.
- type0 10y agoIt's more like: if you lost your keys on your way home, you go and look for them under the lamp post because you're drunk and you can only see where the light is.