I believe it was Steve Fretwell who pointed out years ago that on a field-math axis (or maybe it was theory not math, but same difference), ecologists had a u-shaped distribution and that those few in the middle frequently got shot at by "extremists" on both sides. He expressed a wish for a more "normal" (in several senses) distribution in the middle. The shooting seems to continue, but there is a growing bulge in the middle that is pregnant with possibilities for the future of ecology. --David Duffy
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM, david schimel <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi all, I have been reading with great interest. I had yet another > response. I lost Wilson right at the outset when he suggested we were > losing great biologists because of lack of math skills (full disclosure: I > was a math major). I have had the opposite experience, hinted at by other > posters. That is, I find students applying with inadequate math skills (ie > not being scared off). I have no experience to suggest that > science-oriented students with strong biophilia are dissuaded by lack of > math. Honestly, sometimes I wish more were! > > Students may be steered away from some science areas because they worry > about the math, but the math expectations of many biology/ecology programs > are not high (not high eneough possibly) and many programs have excellent > courses targeted to such students to give them the tools they need to do > their own quantative research or to at least talk with appropriate > colleagues. > > Students with field skills, organismal identification skills and lab skills > are still very welcome in most programs: I don't know where the idea that > students think ecology is math-heavy comes from. Whether it should be > math heavy, etc is another debate (about which I have opinions), separate > from whether students avoid ecology because of math. I just don't think > very many do. > > dave > > PS I do actually believe ecology should be a post-calculus subject, and > that mathematics is A (not the) language of science (taxonomy being > another) > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ganter, Philip <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Boy, I wonder if Ol' Karl Popper is spinning in his grave! For those who > > have followed this thread, I must say that no arguments for the value of > > math or stories illustrating that fact will disprove Wilson's thesis. I > am > > reminded of Pauli's opinion that an article "wasn't even wrong". We seem > > to have many assertions that are at right angles to the direction of > > Wilson's argument and, although they intersect it at the word "math", > they > > can't move his argument either forward or backward. > > > > Some have taken the time to actually disagree with Wilson, to assert that > > there is no, little or diminishing room for biologists who are not > skilled > > at math. This is an arguable point, especially if one takes the weaker > > position that room is diminishing. But, given even the weaker position > and > > considering the diminished math skills of high school graduates (when I > > enrolled in college, introductory calculus was the most basic math > > available to me but the school at which I teach today has, including > > "developmental" math, up to 2 years of math before students take calculus > > and most STEM students cannot place into calculus), you can see why > Wilson > > is concerned. > > > > Jane argues that we must bridge the gap through better math education. > > Hurrah to her efforts (the course description in her blog seems very > > encouraging). The role of math in both biology and biology education is > > truly and evergreen issue. As a grad student, I witnessed a wonderful > > spontaneous debate between Robert May and Nelson Hairston on the role of > > modeling in ecology. Tremendous salvos from some very heavy artillery, > yet > > both sides remained standing at the end. The lesson I learned that day > was > > that no single approach to biology, no matter how powerful, was a > > sufficient approach to understanding living things. As I mentioned in my > > first post on this subject, I teach intro stats and I pay careful > attention > > to manipulating my student's attitudes about the value of math to them. > > But I will never say to them that math should be the gatekeeper of their > > ambition as biologists. > > > > Phil Ganter > > > -- Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit Botany University of Hawaii 3190 Maile Way Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA 1-808-956-8218
