4 ms·

Hard disagree. We understand biology for the most part. The issue is in the exact implementations. An analogy would be like understanding how a computer works.

Hard disagree. We understand biology for the most part. The issue is in the exact implementations. An analogy would be like understanding how a computer works. We know how chips are made, the physics behind them. We know how bits are stored and processing steps are executed. We also know generally how operating systems work. We have the full compiled code as assembly instructions. But we don’t have the source code of the OS. We just use crude tools to figure out The details of the OS and how it works on particular subsystems but because of the crude nature of the tools the knowledge we gain is ambiguous at times.

randcraw 4y ago
Biology is incomparable to computers, or to any other man-made machine. In computers the components interact in well-defined separable and independent roles. In a biological organism, all components depend heavily on not just one or two other components, but many. The role we impute for each mechanism often interfere and/or collaborate with other seemingly unrelated mechanisms, often in hierarchical and nonlinear fashion. That's why the function of even simple biological subsystems is so challenging to decipher. Context and interdependency are everywhere. That's why the oxymoronicism of a biologist “fixing a radio” rings so true.
- dinvlad 4y ago
  > Context and interdependency are everywhere. Very much applicable to software as well :-) Modern systems are so complex there're very few people (if at all) who understand everything in them, even though they were man-made over time.
Balgair 4y ago
Having done a lot of biology, I'd disagree that we understand biology. My background is neuro, so take that into account. But in neuro, we've nearly no idea about the larger parts of how it all works. Sure, yeah, electrically active neurons, we have that down. But the non electrically active parts? I mean, we're still debating about how much of the brain is glia. Like, we can't even agree on how to count. Don't get me started on synapses.
- dinvlad 4y ago
  I don't even think we understand software, much less biology :-) We can only hope to understand the pieces that are most relevant to the business domain we're trying to solve (like curing a disease or expanding an online business). The complexity of both types of systems is just increasing exponentially over time, so there's little hope (or even need) to understand the whole thing. The challenge is, of course, to understand what's relevant in the first place. And just like in software, we can only hope to come with the right levels of abstraction and disregard the irrelevant parts at each level of understanding.
  - ramraj07 4y ago
    There’s a difference between YOU understanding everything vs. ANYONE understanding everything though.
    - dinvlad 4y ago
      For sure - and I don't think we necessarily have the ANYONE part either :-) The reason for that is folks who build systems often leave, and the details of why or even how they did something leave with them. At some point, there's no one in the company who understands certain things. And the analogy with biology actually goes even further - just like in software, we "know" the code (DNA), but how does that translate to the behavior of the complex system (and business requirements in software), is lost to time and the sheer complexity of these systems.
      - ramraj07 4y ago
        So someone builds something and they leave, and you can’t figure out their code? Or more importantly, you’re suggesting it’s impossible to figure out that code by anyone? Seems a stretch don’t you think?
        RugnirViking 4y ago
        he's not saying it's impossible to figure out some piece of code, but "all" code. There is just too much of it! Going into even something as relatively simple as an operating system, let alone a whole ecosystem with drivers, internet protocols & more would take many lifetimes. The "anyone" part comes because there are countless parts of those infinately complex systems that have no documentation and no maintainers. They can individually be reverse engineered if it is needed in an individual case, but nobody is going to do that for most of them.

randcraw 4y ago

Biology is incomparable to computers, or to any other man-made machine. In computers the components interact in well-defined separable and independent roles. In a biological organism, all components depend heavily on not just one or two other components, but many. The role we impute for each mechanism often interfere and/or collaborate with other seemingly unrelated mechanisms, often in hierarchical and nonlinear fashion. That's why the function of even simple biological subsystems is so challenging to decipher. Context and interdependency are everywhere. That's why the oxymoronicism of a biologist “fixing a radio” rings so true.

dinvlad 4y ago
> Context and interdependency are everywhere. Very much applicable to software as well :-) Modern systems are so complex there're very few people (if at all) who understand everything in them, even though they were man-made over time.

Balgair 4y ago

Having done a lot of biology, I'd disagree that we understand biology. My background is neuro, so take that into account. But in neuro, we've nearly no idea about the larger parts of how it all works. Sure, yeah, electrically active neurons, we have that down. But the non electrically active parts? I mean, we're still debating about how much of the brain is glia. Like, we can't even agree on how to count. Don't get me started on synapses.

dinvlad 4y ago
I don't even think we understand software, much less biology :-) We can only hope to understand the pieces that are most relevant to the business domain we're trying to solve (like curing a disease or expanding an online business). The complexity of both types of systems is just increasing exponentially over time, so there's little hope (or even need) to understand the whole thing. The challenge is, of course, to understand what's relevant in the first place. And just like in software, we can only hope to come with the right levels of abstraction and disregard the irrelevant parts at each level of understanding.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  There’s a difference between YOU understanding everything vs. ANYONE understanding everything though.
  - dinvlad 4y ago
    For sure - and I don't think we necessarily have the ANYONE part either :-) The reason for that is folks who build systems often leave, and the details of why or even how they did something leave with them. At some point, there's no one in the company who understands certain things. And the analogy with biology actually goes even further - just like in software, we "know" the code (DNA), but how does that translate to the behavior of the complex system (and business requirements in software), is lost to time and the sheer complexity of these systems.
    - ramraj07 4y ago
      So someone builds something and they leave, and you can’t figure out their code? Or more importantly, you’re suggesting it’s impossible to figure out that code by anyone? Seems a stretch don’t you think?
      - RugnirViking 4y ago
        he's not saying it's impossible to figure out some piece of code, but "all" code. There is just too much of it! Going into even something as relatively simple as an operating system, let alone a whole ecosystem with drivers, internet protocols & more would take many lifetimes. The "anyone" part comes because there are countless parts of those infinately complex systems that have no documentation and no maintainers. They can individually be reverse engineered if it is needed in an individual case, but nobody is going to do that for most of them.