3 ms·
Wilson's point is not that math/stats aren't necessary for most research. They are. He admits it. Instead, he argues that there is an ample supply of math/st
by beloch 14y ago
Wilson's point is not that math/stats aren't necessary for most research. They are. He admits it. Instead, he argues that there is an ample supply of math/stats researchers to collaborate with, so you can get by in science being mathematically illiterate. I disagree.
As a grad student, I did work in experimental quantum physics. Emphasis on experimental. There were only a handful of places on Earth where theorists could go to test the sort of stuff we could do in the lab. In a very specific corner of scientific knowledge, we were the choke point. We collaborated with theorists from all over the world. Many of them could do things on paper that I could barely understand. I had to understand them to test them though, and they helped me greatly. I'd be rather disappointed in Wilson if he was happy to test theories he couldn't understand!
I think the message shouldn't be that "there are people to do math/stats for you if you want to do science". Perhaps you could get by that way, and perhaps Wilson has been able to con people into thinking he's good when he's testing things he doesn't understand. That takes a completely different skillset than math/stats I suppose, but I don't find it admirable.
Perhaps a better message is that you don't have to be a hardcore theorist to contribute to scientific research. You need to be able to understand what you're doing, but you don't need to be a genius who covers every surface around him in incomprehensible symbols while gibbering to himself gleefully. (Yes, these people do exist, and they are sometimes awesome to have around.) Theorists are just one kind of scientist. Experimentalists are every bit as important, but their skill set is different. Theorists can wave their hands and make assumptions when solving problems. Experimentalists have to think things through very pedantically because assumptions usually bite them in the ass. Theorists can tackle a different problem every day and move between wildly disparate fields on a whim. Experimenalists have to stick with one problem for months or years at a time. Experimental work involves a lot of craft and patience.
So no, you don't need to be a mathematical genius to be a scientist, but I wouldn't want to be an experimentalist who can't understand what he's doing!
- asafira 14y agoI think the fact of the matter is simply this: at some point in one's career in physics, when you make a decision between being an experimentalist and theorist, you don't spend nearly as much time focusing on the theory. I don't think it's wrong, but it's just natural that at some point you won't be as fluent with the theory as theorists. I was writing out how I don't agree with the author, but then I took in the bigger picture and realized that indeed I do think that a lot of the experimentalists in the field have either forgotten or just aren't that great at their math skills. I think this shows most in classes, where it's easy for them to get tripped up over details. That being said, most of the time it's just simple things. I think there is still clearly a higher bar (in general) in physics than in other sciences (i.e., biology) as far as math goes, and it's far too much of a stretch to say you don't need to know math well to do well. We aren't talking about algebraic topology here, I think Wilson is commenting even on just multivariable calc and linear algebra. Quantum Mechanics without linear algebra? At the very least, it would be very hard to learn (if at all). If anyone from non-physics fields has some comments, I would be interested to hear.