tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post2413017899985714112..comments2024-03-28T13:17:41.599+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: What is the use of mathematics in biology?Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-73592234225804174972013-06-13T11:50:29.788+01:002013-06-13T11:50:29.788+01:00@d - Probably things were not as bad in your neck ...@d - Probably things were not as bad in your neck of the woods as in biology/ medical science - where the kind of 'junk modelling' you describe is more likely to lead to publication in Nature or Science and multi-million-dollar program grants from MRC/ Wellcome or NI(M)H then to a failed PhD.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-66303564257487564652013-06-13T10:29:22.053+01:002013-06-13T10:29:22.053+01:00I have every sympathy with your argument. As a ma...I have every sympathy with your argument. As a mathematical modeller I always had a huge advantage over those who had, as you said, been "captured by their methodology".<br />(That is to say an intellectual advantage, of course, not a career advantage.) <br /><br />I once sat down to a PhD examination at a college of the University of London and had to tell the poor boy that his thesis was junk because the whole basis of his model did not correspond to physical reality. Neither he, nor his supervisor, nor his internal examiner, had given any thought to how the data were measured. Twits.<br /><br />I remember, too, finding this when I first read about climate modelling - not only were the modellers a bit on the dim side to be doing such work, but they just didn't think physically. Twats.deariemenoreply@blogger.com