I disagree. E.O. Wilson has written an essay that few seem to be actually reading. He is targeting specific audiences, and providing encouragement for those without math skills. He is not telling people to blow off math. See below.
1) This article is written with two specific audiences in mind: A) students interested in science but who find math very very difficult, and B) people who believe that if you are not a mathematical superstar you have no place in science. It is not concerning those who can do math well. NO, you do not need to have great math skills, it helps, a lot, but you can get around it. The audience is made clear in this paragraph: "During my decades of teaching biology at Harvard, I watched sadly as bright undergraduates turned away from the possibility of a scientific career, fearing that, without strong math skills, they would fail. This mistaken assumption has deprived science of an immeasurable amount of sorely needed talent. It has created a hemorrhage of brain power we need to stanch." 2) He does not say math is not important, he says that the ability to form concepts is more important than math. Based on the comments on this listerve over the year, I believe we all agree here. I come to this based on this excerpt: "Fortunately, exceptional mathematical fluency is required in only a few disciplines, such as particle physics, astrophysics and information theory. Far more important throughout the rest of science is the ability to form concepts, during which the researcher conjures images and processes by intuition." 3) He makes the point that math without conceptualization ability is basically useless, whereas when you combine the two it can be much better, but you must team up with a person who does have the skills, and these folks are everywhere happy to team up with you. I come to this based on this excerpt: "Ideas in science emerge most readily when some part of the world is studied for its own sake. They follow from thorough, well-organized knowledge of all that is known or can be imagined of real entities and processes within that fragment of existence. When something new is encountered, the follow-up steps usually require mathematical and statistical methods to move the analysis forward. If that step proves too technically difficult for the person who made the discovery, a mathematician or statistician can be added as a collaborator." and from this excerpt: "Call it Wilson's Principle No. 1: It is far easier for scientists to acquire needed collaboration from mathematicians and statisticians than it is for mathematicians and statisticians to find scientists able to make use of their equations." 4) He specifically tells people that if their math skills are not adequate, they better take more math. He is very clear on this in this excerpt: "If your level of mathematical competence is low, plan to raise it, but meanwhile, know that you can do outstanding scientific work with what you have." 5) The entire point of this article is that just because you are poor in math, does not mean you are a poor scientist. You just have to pick your field properly. (I recall an environment chemist once telling me he has never needed to use any math higher than a simple regression, and he is at an R1 with quite a funded lab). To support this notion, I concluded this from the final paragraph: "For aspiring scientists, a key first step is to find a subject that interests them deeply and focus on it. In doing so, they should keep in mind Wilson's Principle No. 2: For every scientist, there exists a discipline for which his or her level of mathematical competence is enough to achieve excellence." I have a feeling that a lot of people jumped to a conclusion before finishing reading the article, because nowhere does he say math is not necessary. He just says that if you need math, you must either attain the skills yourself, or find someone else who has the skills and can work with you. This is actually not only good and encouraging advice (because so many of us learn math late in life), it is also spot on accurate with how we do much science today. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:22 PM, David Inouye <[email protected]> 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 -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
