I agree with the comments from Malcom McCallum and others. E.O Wilson is not saying that maths are not important. If you as a biologist has already the math skills or are happy about getting them, then perfect. Meanwhile nothing should stop you from using your skills and capabilities as a biologist to find relevant scientific questions and to answer them with the methods you best know (although they may not sound like trendy enough anymore, specially for some journals). Definitely, a biologist also needs to consider the collaboration from statisticians/mathematicians because we should not forget they also study their degrees for something.
It seems to me that it exists a general trend today to demand not only good biologists, but much more than that: a kind of "multitask-universal" biologists. This dilutes the concept of what we actually are overall as professionals: biologists. I guess a balance is ultimately necessary and some multidisciplinary knowledge is very useful (specially in maths), but we should not forget that statisticians and mathematicians study their degrees to become experts in those fields and to offer expert guidance to professionals from others. Just like doctors or nurses are skilled in their own fields and they usually work together. However, we do not see out there that a nurse requires to have the same knowledge in medicine as a doctor to become a good nurse or even to work as a nurse (doctors would not even allow this last). This is perhaps applicable to other skills such as programming, GIS, English command, etc, etc... I am not a native English speaker, but I truly believe nobody could say to a non-English speaker student that he/she cannot be a good biologist just because English is not his/her mother tongue; although obviously, the more you learn, the better. Therefore, if you are happy to learn and to collect enough skills to understand better what you need and to extend your capabilities then perfect, otherwise find collaboration and take the most from your knowledge as biologist to produce together great science. If a good house is built by different professionals (architects, electricians, carpenters, plumbers), why this may not be applicable and a common practice in biology? I guess this tendency to demand multitask biologists may be somehow consequence of the limiting funding available in our field to create multidisciplinary teams; a common practice in other disciplines. It may also be consequence of an erroneous concept of competence (but not necessarily and ultimately competitive) exported from specific cultures where it is not enough to be good in something, one has to be the best in all. However, as fictional as this idea is, one must ultimately decide to become either "lion's tail or mouse's head". I feel this situation may be leading us even to an uneasy extreme; that is, a divorce between biologists who still rely on observations in the field to produce relevant questions, and those that look for relevant questions from their office more focused on fancy mathematical methods for addressing the research in an original and sound way. This last because they may rely on a high command on maths and programming skills that perhaps overtake their biological ones. I am not saying this is not legitimate or it is wrong, but I find this should not become a trend to impose. Otherwise, we may loose somehow the sight of what is actually going on in the nature and about us as professionals of science. Said this, I am going to study Conditional Autorregresive Models before going early to bed. I have fieldwork to do tomorrow. Dr. Mariano Rodríguez Recio Department of Zoology | *Te Tari Matāi Kararehe* University of Otago | *Te Whare Wānanga o Otāgo * Box 56 Dunedin | *Ōtepot*i New Zealand | *Aotearoa* ************************** - Spatial Ecology Research Facility School of Surveying University of Otago Box 56, Dunedin New Zealand Ph +64 3 479 7591 ************************** " Para los valientes lo malo se convierte en bueno de repente" On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:56 PM, malcolm McCallum < [email protected]> 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 <[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. >
