I teach introductory stats and value math greatly. However, you are either missing Wilson's point or simply won't recognize it. Wilson is not saying math is not useful. Physics is useful but how many biologists are still any good at electronics or crystallography? For a biologist interested in this listserv, geology is useful. You are responding to a straw man of your own creation. What Wilson is saying is that it is not necessary to be a math whiz in order to contribute to science and that too many students believe the opposite is true. This is, once again, not to say that math is not useful or that biologists should have no math skills. It is to recognize that there is no single set of skills that makes one a good scientist. Wilson might even go a step farther and claim that there is no single skill that is found in all scientists but I may be taking his argument too far for his approval.
Phil Ganter Biological Sciences Tennessee State University On 4/9/13 9:27 PM, "Mitch Cruzan" <[email protected]> wrote: I couldn't agree more - it can only help. On 4/9/2013 6:22 PM, David Inouye wrote: > Don't Listen to E.O. Wilson > > > > > Math can help you in almost any career. There's no reason to fear it. > > <http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/e_o_wilson_is_wrong_about_math_and_science.html>http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/e_o_wilson_is_wrong_about_math_and_science.html
