Pioneers in science only rarely make discoveries by extracting ideas from pure
mathematics. Most of the stereotypical photographs of scientists studying rows
of
equations on a blackboard are instructors explaining discoveries already made.
Real progress comes in the field writing notes, at the
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
, K7L 3N6
-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-
l...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely
Sent: April-10-13 11:20 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] A response to E.O. Wilson's opinion about math
Thank you Malcolm,
I agree completely with your conclusions and I am glad for your post. It
seems people are jumping to conclusions before reading the entire article,
or with busy schedules are skimming and missing the point.
Ed Krynak
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:56 PM, malcolm McCallum
Thank you very much Phil Malcolm for explaining what E. O. Wilson was REALLY
saying. If a sophisticated and mature audience like ECOLOG-L doesn't get it
what hope of inspiring the young.
Priyantha
D. P. Wijesinghe
dpwijesin...@yahoo.com
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
Some of you may be interested in a response I wrote on Google+, from the
perspective of someone who does plenty of modeling.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/109678189789435119043/posts/7mZ9iuhztKC
Jane Shevtsov
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:56 PM, malcolm McCallum
malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote:
The best response to Wilson's op-ed I have read so far is by Jeremy Fox on the
Dynamic Ecology blog, which he has been updating with links to posts and
comments by others on the internets:
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/e-o-wilson-vs-math/
If Wilson's intent was to provoke
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
All,
Here's my drafted op-ed in response. Thanks to whoever posted the
initial Op-Ed!
Cheers,
Will Wilson
Assoc. Prof. Biology
Duke Univ.
My area of science is (or, rather, was) mathematical evolutionary
ecology. It offers an exciting blend of biological, mathematical, and
computational
There's a difference between biologists as a cultural group 1) embracing
and celebrating the contributions of mathematics to biology, and
2) requiring mathematics at a certain age / stage to be able to progress
in biology. The latter acts as a selective filter /barrier / turnoff that
may divert
This all assumes that the theory of learning stages and plateaus does
not result in late bloomers.
Some people appear to expand their learning potential up to a point,
plateau for a while, and then accelerate. So their learning potential
expands in leaps, not continuously. These folks could
As a young scientist (PhD Student) I do, of course, appreciate encouragement in
any form, I know
this is the purpose here. However, I have two major problems with the message
that is conveyed
(regardless of the intent):
1). We want jobs! In a time when finding a job as a scientist is
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
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.
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
Don't Listen to E.O. Wilson
Math can help you in almost any career. There's no reason to fear it.
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.
I teach introductory stats and value math greatly. However, you are either
missing Wilson's point or simply won't recognize it. Wilson is not saying math
is not useful. Physics is useful but how many biologists are still any good at
electronics or crystallography? For a biologist interested
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
