“It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover. To know how to criticize is good, to know how to create is better” - H. Poincaré (1908) Science and Method (Part II. Ch. 2, p. 129).
Some of the best science results when someone excels in both quantitative skill and creativity. But this has always been (and always will be) an extremely rare breed - an outlier. Intrinsic trade-offs usually limit the frequency of phenotypes that are good at everything. Wilson of course knows this, and so his piece was not a prescription for how to become an outlier (there is none). Instead, it was a prescription for how to be a successful scientist, while knowing that the vast majority of aspiring science students could never - in their wildest dreams - expect or even hope to be a super-star outlier. More commonly, many successful scientists tend to be more quantitatively skilled than creative, while many others tend to be more creative than quantitatively skilled. Often, these two types find themselves working together in teams to produce good science, and this is increasingly important as the exponential growth of knowledge and technology continues, and thus it becomes increasingly more difficult for someone to be an outlier - good at everything. The bottom line is that science progresses best through pluralism, collaboration and teamwork - not by dogmatism, egoism and elitism. Progress then involves recognizing that there are different kinds of people - with different minds and different strengths - that can make valuable contributions to science. That is the central message from Wilson’s article, which echoes the great mathematician, Poincare, above. It is especially important that creative people not be discouraged from pursuing science because they might not have the sharpest mathematical inclination. They can easily find plenty of others to work with that do, while at the same time learning enough mathematics to collaborate effectively. Lonnie Aarssen Department of Biology Queen's University Kingston, ON Canada, K7L 3N6 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > Sent: April-10-13 11:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] A response to E.O. Wilson's opinion about math > > Wilson did not say mathematics is not important. He said that one can make > meaningful contributions to science without being expert at advanced > mathematics. He also did mention collaboration and stated that he sought > such collaboration in his own work, which he stated benefited from his doing > so. > > David McNeely > > ---- "Thomas J. Givnish" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I heartily agree. Easy for EO to say math isn't important; he doesn't > > mention > his collaboration with the mathematically inclined Robert Macarthur, leading > to the theory of island biogeography. And the problems with Wilson's foray > into group selection theory are testimony to the kinds of problems people > without strong math skills can get into, especially if they're seduced by > mathematicians without a solid ecological/evolutionary grounding. > > > > Yes, it might be true that most mathematicians lack strong ecological > intuition. But so do many ecologists! There is a substantial list of people we > could cite who have made major contributions to ecology and evolutionary > biology in no small part because they do have a strong mathematical > background. Why aren't they mentioned? Or don't they exist, in Wilson's > worldview? In Wilson's case, math was not his strong suit; arguably, writing > was. So should we advise students NOT to enter ecology if their writing isn't > up to Pulitzer caliber? I hope not. People can bring a variety of skills to > bear > to make a contribution in almost any field. Writing off mathematical ability, > as Wilson does, doesn't help, and trivializes the profound insights that > mathematically savvy, ecologically well-grounded scientists have provided. > And it reinforces the delusion that many people "aren't good at math", when > in fact they didn't have a good set of math teachers, or took the math at the > wrong stage of their development. > > > > Thomas J. Givnish > > Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin > > > > [email protected] > > http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04/09/13, Mitch Cruzan 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_ab > > > >out_math_and_science.html > > > > -- > > -- > David McNeely
