3 ms·

"Bio is more memorization than anything" - no offense, but this was not so much my experience of biology and related fields. At the same time, I've noticed that

by Fomite 12y ago

"Bio is more memorization than anything" - no offense, but this was not so much my experience of biology and related fields. At the same time, I've noticed that many math folks make no effort to reach out to the other side - recognizing that PDEs are a big deal to some people, intimidating, and not exactly terribly approachable. Or assuming because they know the math, surely the biology will just fall into place. I have seen some very interesting math papers with appalling biology in them. I think the issue I have with this post, and the article in general, is the very one sided "You need us, take more math" tone. With funding being harder and harder to get in pure math, math also needs applications - biology among them as it potentially unlocks NIH funding. It's not a one-sided failure.

wolfgke 12y ago
> At the same time, I've noticed that many math folks make no effort to reach out to the other side - recognizing that PDEs are a big deal to some people, intimidating, and not exactly terribly approachable. Being a mathematician, I don't know any other way than to say: "Read this and this text and understand it. Then you'll grasp what I'm talking about.". I can tell you that even for many math students, say, PDEs are intimedating and not exactly terribly approachable at the beginning. But the difference is that by reading texts, hearing lectures etc. they simply get over it and get quite used to them. So, I believe, the mathematicians you talk about are quite honest in the sense that they are really doing their best, but simply don't know a better way to talk about their topic.
- Fomite 12y ago
  I would suggest starting with "What happened, and why I did it". Having explained my fair share of stochastic simulations of systems of ODEs to clinicians, I think the core of the problem is heading into the mathematical tall grass way to quickly.
  - wolfgke 12y ago
    > I think the core of the problem is heading into the mathematical tall grass way to quickly. In my experience non-mathematicians don't like listening to loooong mathematical talks (although those would be necessary for introducing the topic in a more smooth way).

by Fomite 12y ago

wolfgke 12y ago

> At the same time, I've noticed that many math folks make no effort to reach out to the other side - recognizing that PDEs are a big deal to some people, intimidating, and not exactly terribly approachable. Being a mathematician, I don't know any other way than to say: "Read this and this text and understand it. Then you'll grasp what I'm talking about.". I can tell you that even for many math students, say, PDEs are intimedating and not exactly terribly approachable at the beginning. But the difference is that by reading texts, hearing lectures etc. they simply get over it and get quite used to them. So, I believe, the mathematicians you talk about are quite honest in the sense that they are really doing their best, but simply don't know a better way to talk about their topic.

Fomite 12y ago
I would suggest starting with "What happened, and why I did it". Having explained my fair share of stochastic simulations of systems of ODEs to clinicians, I think the core of the problem is heading into the mathematical tall grass way to quickly.
- wolfgke 12y ago
  > I think the core of the problem is heading into the mathematical tall grass way to quickly. In my experience non-mathematicians don't like listening to loooong mathematical talks (although those would be necessary for introducing the topic in a more smooth way).