this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
110 points (80.6% liked)
science
14362 readers
856 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Theoretical biologist here. This is an incredibly important book. I just bought it a few minutes ago and so I’m only partway through the beginning, but it’s summarizing everything people from my school of thought (complex adaptive systems theory, multilevel selection models, and so on) have been arguing for two or three decades. It’s a very fast read so far (probably less so if you’re less familiar with the points the author is making), but I really hope that this book has an impact that’s reflective of the timeliness and cohesiveness (as I am reading into what the author is preparing to argue) deserves.
Maybe finish the book before you decide?
If you’re familiar with the subject, you can tell exactly where the author is going to go with it. I’ve been working on and teaching this material for about 20 years, and I’ve applied it against quite a diverse number of areas.
I’m not learning anything new from the book, but simply reading a well-assembled argument as to why it should become a dominant paradigm.
Lol you're saying with a chapter you don't even need to read the rest of it? And you're a scientist?
Yes, because I know this material well enough that I could have written this book, and have written multiple papers on closely related topics as well as taught courses on this material.
I’m sorry if that seems weird but it’s what happens when you become an expert in a field, especially one as narrow as theoretical biology. I knew exactly where he was going with his argument.
It’s like when you have a twin and you can finish each other’s sandwiches.
What's weird is claiming the book is "incredibly important" but also, the author's thoughts on the subject are so obvious that you do not need to finish the book.
Let’s say you were an expert in epidemiological modeling, and you and a modestly sized group of your fellow researchers had been working on an approach that demonstrated what should have been done in 2020, and what a shitshow it would be if it wasn’t done. Then, of course, it wasn’t done. Then one of your fellow travelers wrote a book saying what should have been done. You know the work - you’d contributed to it yourself - but you think other people should know about it.
Would you consider that book “very important?”
IDK, I only read the first line of your comment
Well, had to read the last line as well to be able to come up with a witty cheeky response ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Or, you know, they're commenting based on what they know, which is most than most of us in this thread, and they're doing it now while the conversation is happening instead of waiting until they've finished the book, because by then everyone will have moved on.
Username half checks out.
Yeh! Good to see the rusty machine (and self-deprecating) model fading away and being replaced by real appreciation of the true marvels that have emerged over millions of years. (Science's mechanical models were all so ... 18th century!)
(Not so familiar with biology but did enjoy hearing about the tack Lee Cronin's taken.)
It's still a rusty machine even if the maths that control it are a bit more complex
Math controls nothing and only models them. It is CRITICALLY important to remember that mathematical models are ONLY models, no matter how closely they match any sampled data.
Everything is math, it's what controls gravity and cell division and protein folding - there is no god it's all just math
Of course the model is only a model but the point is you can use the model to predict real world responses, therefore you can test millions of things and do the one which is most likely to work
No, you've internalized it in the wrong way. The mathematical model comes AFTER the real world. It is not related to the real world what so ever except in correlation. Correlation is not causation. ESPECIALLY with a human-made MODEL.
If the maths actually drove ANYTHING, you wouldn't be saying, "most likely" to work...
Yes that's a model, I'm not saying the model magically controls reality but that the underpinning reality is math - the reason you always have two apples in a bag when you start with one and add another is because of math, the human model of that isn't controlling it but if we want two apples in a bag and we currently only have one then we can use our model to determine how many apples we need to add into the bag.
The same is true of more complex systems, if we can accurately model the cellar interactions then we can derive solutions in the same way
That's the thing: It's NOT math. Math is an expression of relationships. The underpinning of reality IS NOT math. Ever. Math is a simplification. Always.
You're using odd ways of describing things to try and win a pointless argument, even if everything you say is correct then it changes literally nothing about anything so whatever yeah use words like a weirdo if you like
No, it IS important. Notice how you keep saying, "the math does it".
You would make a terrible experimental physicist because you'd just sit there adjusting your aparatus because it doesn't match the equations instead of actually learning something new... It is not the math doing anything. The math does nothing. The aparatus doesn't fucking care what you think it's supposed to do. It doesn't care what's written on the paper.
There is no underlying calculation to expose. What you are doing is pidgeonholing your thought process. You are narrowing the avenues in which you think, which absolutely can and does make people miss important crossroads all the time.
It may be an abstract concept I'm referencing when it comes to math, but the problem is real in human thinking. It shows up in programming all the time. People insist things MUST work a certain way... and are proven wrong again and again... and that's in a domain where humans DO have control over what happens and it actually is an equation!
How much worse do you think dogmatic thinking gets when it's far more abstract? How long did it take people to accept the concept of 'i'? Hell, how long did it take people to accept zero?! Humans are always. Always. Dumber than they think they are. That includes me. That's how I've learned these lessons over the years: by putting my foot in my mouth and not liking the taste.
You just used a bunch of words to describe "arguing semantics". And I find it hilarious because you're doing the exact same thing you accuse them of.
But also, they're right, you should drop this pointless argument.
What’s the name of the theory the says cells use the genome like a library of tools?