There are many areas in ecology and evolutionary biology – for example, physiological ecology, biomechanics, population genetics, theoretical ecology, phylogenetic theory – where people without their OWN strong mathematical skills will forever be at a strong disadvantage. Nowhere does Wilson express that salient point. Further, nowhere does Wilson mention the advantages of strong mathematical skills in disciplines other than a few extreme cases (e.g., particle physics, astrophysics), and nowhere does he give examples of the kinds of insights that can be obtained in ecology and evolutionary biology only through a strong math ability. For all the constructive points that others might cite, we still have the indelible image Wilson crafted – that people working with lots of equations are not discovering new science, but merely chronicling and teaching what others have discovered. I did read the essay, and I'm not swallowing it, flaws and all.
On 04/09/13, malcolm McCallum wrote: > 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 <ino...@umd.edu> 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. -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
