
Do Not Study Biological Science or Anything Related - keyboardman
https://leimao.github.io/blog/Do-Not-Study-Life-Science/
======
eesmith
Utter crap essay. It reads like it was written by a disgruntled and
undereducated undergraduate frustrated with biology classes and venting.

> Most of the disciplines in science and engineering share lots in common.
> Every new finding is based on mathematical axiom, law of physics, rigorous
> mathematical derivation, or verifications in both experiments and practice.

That's false in both ways. Astronomy includes things like "we spotted a
surplus of neutrinos a few hours before visible light from Supernova 1987A was
seen."

According to the author's claim, astronomy therefore cannot be science.

While, believe it or not, many biological claims _are_ verified by both
experiment and practice.

> In principle, every student or researcher in science and engineering should
> have very solid skills to do mathematics

That's depending a lot on what "solid" means. Some geologists know a lot of
mathematics. Some know little. _Just like biologists._

And it's not like volcanologists can repeat observations of Krakatoa or Mt.
St. Helens.

> students from different science or engineering departments are taking the
> same fundamental courses which heavily emphasize on mathematics

That's circular reasoning as it assumes that biological science is not part of
science.

Let's see, [http://catalog.illinois.edu/undergraduate/las/molecular-
cell...](http://catalog.illinois.edu/undergraduate/las/molecular-cellular-
biology-bslas/) says that "The Molecular and Cellular Biology major provides
students with a solid preparation in molecular biology, molecular genetics,
microbiology, cellular biology, biochemistry, physiology, and structural
biology. Students will also acquire a strong background in chemistry, _math_
and physical science."

Look at that - a biological science which requires a strong background in
math.

> students majoring in life science would still have to attend courses, such
> as calculus, linear algebra, and probability and statistics ... Those
> courses, however, would hardly be used in the specialized life science
> studies. Because you would hardly use math in your study and research, you
> forgot.

The author is quite clearly lacking in understanding of what "biological
science" includes.

To pick another point, I'll quote from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics)
"Population genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic
differences within and between populations, and is a part of evolutionary
biology. ... _Traditionally a highly mathematical discipline_ , modern
population genetics encompasses theoretical, lab, and field work."

> almost all of my former colleagues who study life science totally forgot how
> to do mathematics, and how to read mathematical symbols and expressions,
> even though they have once studied it before.

Yeah, and I have a Master's degree in physics and a Bachelor's degree in both
C.S. and math ... and I've also "totally forgot how to do mathematics, and how
to read mathematical symbols and expressions." I can read a page from my once
beloved Bartle "The Elements of Real Analysis" and recognize that I've used to
know what it meant, but can no longer read it.

So the above quote proves diddlysquat.

> Life science is more close to chemistry than any other disciplines in
> science and engineering. So in principle, students or researchers study life
> science should have very good knowledge about chemistry. However, based on
> my teaching and research experience, it is often not true.

That's just wrong. There's all sorts of biology. Some are closely tied to
chemistry. Most are not. A paleontologist is much closer to a geologist than a
chemist. A biologist studying vertebrate locomotion is probably closer to a
physicist.

> In my opinion, the correct way to do science is one of the followings: •
> Deriving theoretical proofs for hypothesis, and doing experiment to verify.
> • Doing thought experiments, such as Einstein’s pursuing of a beam of light
> experiment.

Almost no science is actually done this way. Again, consider geology. The
identification of the Missoula Floods was done by gathering evidence first,
identifying that it was odd, and _then_ constructing hypotheses which lead to
further data collection to support or reject each hypothesis.

Just like, umm, biology.

> The career of life science is driven by publications

Same for just about every other field of science.

> However, the time is different to several decades ago when people’s
> motivation of understanding life is pure.

Really? Really?! Only those innocent of historical understanding could make
that claim.

One word: Lysenko.

I can't do any more fisking. It's not worth it, and no longer fun.

