4 ms·

Do Not Study Biological Science or Anything Related

3 points by keyboardman 7y ago

eesmith 7y ago
Utter crap essay. It reads like it was written by a disgruntled and undereducated undergraduate frustrated with biology classes and venting. > Most of the disciplines in science and engineering share lots in common. Every new finding is based on mathematical axiom, law of physics, rigorous mathematical derivation, or verifications in both experiments and practice. That's false in both ways. Astronomy includes things like "we spotted a surplus of neutrinos a few hours before visible light from Supernova 1987A was seen." According to the author's claim, astronomy therefore cannot be science. While, believe it or not, many biological claims are verified by both experiment and practice. > In principle, every student or researcher in science and engineering should have very solid skills to do mathematics That's depending a lot on what "solid" means. Some geologists know a lot of mathematics. Some know little. Just like biologists. And it's not like volcanologists can repeat observations of Krakatoa or Mt. St. Helens. > students from different science or engineering departments are taking the same fundamental courses which heavily emphasize on mathematics That's circular reasoning as it assumes that biological science is not part of science. Let's see, http://catalog.illinois.edu/undergraduate/las/molecular-cellular-biology-bslas/ http://catalog.illinois.edu/undergraduate/las/molecular-cell... says that "The Molecular and Cellular Biology major provides students with a solid preparation in molecular biology, molecular genetics, microbiology, cellular biology, biochemistry, physiology, and structural biology. Students will also acquire a strong background in chemistry, math and physical science." Look at that - a biological science which requires a strong background in math. > students majoring in life science would still have to attend courses, such as calculus, linear algebra, and probability and statistics ... Those courses, however, would hardly be used in the specialized life science studies. Because you would hardly use math in your study and research, you forgot. The author is quite clearly lacking in understanding of what "biological science" includes. To pick another point, I'll quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics "Population genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and between populations, and is a part of evolutionary biology. ... Traditionally a highly mathematical discipline, modern population genetics encompasses theoretical, lab, and field work." > almost all of my former colleagues who study life science totally forgot how to do mathematics, and how to read mathematical symbols and expressions, even though they have once studied it before. Yeah, and I have a Master's degree in physics and a Bachelor's degree in both C.S. and math ... and I've also "totally forgot how to do mathematics, and how to read mathematical symbols and expressions." I can read a page from my once beloved Bartle "The Elements of Real Analysis" and recognize that I've used to know what it meant, but can no longer read it. So the above quote proves diddlysquat. > Life science is more close to chemistry than any other disciplines in science and engineering. So in principle, students or researchers study life science should have very good knowledge about chemistry. However, based on my teaching and research experience, it is often not true. That's just wrong. There's all sorts of biology. Some are closely tied to chemistry. Most are not. A paleontologist is much closer to a geologist than a chemist. A biologist studying vertebrate locomotion is probably closer to a physicist. > In my opinion, the correct way to do science is one of the followings: • Deriving theoretical proofs for hypothesis, and doing experiment to verify. • Doing thought experiments, such as Einstein’s pursuing of a beam of light experiment. Almost no science is actually done this way. Again, consider geology. The identification of the Missoula Floods was done by gathering evidence first, identifying that it was odd, and then constructing hypotheses which lead to further data collection to support or reject each hypothesis. Just like, umm, biology. > The career of life science is driven by publications Same for just about every other field of science. > However, the time is different to several decades ago when people’s motivation of understanding life is pure. Really? Really?! Only those innocent of historical understanding could make that claim. One word: Lysenko. I can't do any more fisking. It's not worth it, and no longer fun.

3 points by keyboardman 7y ago

Utter crap essay. It reads like it was written by a disgruntled and undereducated undergraduate frustrated with biology classes and venting. > Most of the disciplines in science and engineering share lots in common. Every new finding is based on mathematical axiom, law of physics, rigorous mathematical derivation, or verifications in both experiments and practice. That's false in both ways. Astronomy includes things like "we spotted a surplus of neutrinos a few hours before visible light from Supernova 1987A was seen." According to the author's claim, astronomy therefore cannot be science. While, believe it or not, many biological claims are verified by both experiment and practice. > In principle, every student or researcher in science and engineering should have very solid skills to do mathematics That's depending a lot on what "solid" means. Some geologists know a lot of mathematics. Some know little. Just like biologists. And it's not like volcanologists can repeat observations of Krakatoa or Mt. St. Helens. > students from different science or engineering departments are taking the same fundamental courses which heavily emphasize on mathematics That's circular reasoning as it assumes that biological science is not part of science. Let's see, http://catalog.illinois.edu/undergraduate/las/molecular-cellular-biology-bslas/ http://catalog.illinois.edu/undergraduate/las/molecular-cell... says that "The Molecular and Cellular Biology major provides students with a solid preparation in molecular biology, molecular genetics, microbiology, cellular biology, biochemistry, physiology, and structural biology. Students will also acquire a strong background in chemistry, math and physical science." Look at that - a biological science which requires a strong background in math. > students majoring in life science would still have to attend courses, such as calculus, linear algebra, and probability and statistics ... Those courses, however, would hardly be used in the specialized life science studies. Because you would hardly use math in your study and research, you forgot. The author is quite clearly lacking in understanding of what "biological science" includes. To pick another point, I'll quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics "Population genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and between populations, and is a part of evolutionary biology. ... Traditionally a highly mathematical discipline, modern population genetics encompasses theoretical, lab, and field work." > almost all of my former colleagues who study life science totally forgot how to do mathematics, and how to read mathematical symbols and expressions, even though they have once studied it before. Yeah, and I have a Master's degree in physics and a Bachelor's degree in both C.S. and math ... and I've also "totally forgot how to do mathematics, and how to read mathematical symbols and expressions." I can read a page from my once beloved Bartle "The Elements of Real Analysis" and recognize that I've used to know what it meant, but can no longer read it. So the above quote proves diddlysquat. > Life science is more close to chemistry than any other disciplines in science and engineering. So in principle, students or researchers study life science should have very good knowledge about chemistry. However, based on my teaching and research experience, it is often not true. That's just wrong. There's all sorts of biology. Some are closely tied to chemistry. Most are not. A paleontologist is much closer to a geologist than a chemist. A biologist studying vertebrate locomotion is probably closer to a physicist. > In my opinion, the correct way to do science is one of the followings: • Deriving theoretical proofs for hypothesis, and doing experiment to verify. • Doing thought experiments, such as Einstein’s pursuing of a beam of light experiment. Almost no science is actually done this way. Again, consider geology. The identification of the Missoula Floods was done by gathering evidence first, identifying that it was odd, and then constructing hypotheses which lead to further data collection to support or reject each hypothesis. Just like, umm, biology. > The career of life science is driven by publications Same for just about every other field of science. > However, the time is different to several decades ago when people’s motivation of understanding life is pure. Really? Really?! Only those innocent of historical understanding could make that claim. One word: Lysenko. I can't do any more fisking. It's not worth it, and no longer fun.