Not only is there no scientific method, but biology does not need math – says prominent evolutionary biologist
| May 20, 2013 | Posted by News under Biology, Mathematics |
Okay, so cosmic Darwinism’s Lee Smolin doesn’t think there is a scientific method, and now it turns out the founder of sociobiology (father of evolutionary psychology), E.O. Wilson, doesn’t think that math matters much to science:
During my decades of teaching biology at Harvard, I watched sadly as bright undergraduates turned away from the possibility of a scientific career, fearing that, without strong math skills, they would fail.
Yes but—and this is said in charity—maybe those students would fail. The way a surgeon with poor hand co-ordination or a medications nurse who is no good with decimal fractions might just plain fail. We can blame anyone we want, but how seriously we take it maybe depends on how much we think is at stake. A bacterial culture or your best friend?
Wilson argues,
This mistaken assumption has deprived science of an immeasurable amount of sorely needed talent. It has created a hemorrhage of brain power we need to stanch.
Hmmm. It’s not clear if his career is any indicator.
His sociobiology (accused of racism—in all fairness, maybe quite wrongly) gave way to evolutionary psychology, as in the Bedrock school of human psychology. All any math-challenged psych major had to do was come up with an apparently plausible thesis about how paleo man supposedly behaved in order to explain the world around us today —like shopping, voting, or tipping at restaurants.Gosh, if math had done nothing at all except chase all these people off the scene, it would definitely be worth its chalk.
Wilson goes on:
Fortunately, exceptional mathematical fluency is required in only a few disciplines, such as particle physics, astrophysics and information theory. Far more important throughout the rest of science is the ability to form concepts, during which the researcher conjures images and processes by intuition.
So, evolutionary psychologists, come right on in!
There are rules, of course. You can say that “People who consider themselves liberals or atheists tend to have higher IQs than those who are more religious or conservative,” but you must not say that women of one ethnic group are perceived as more attractive than others.
If Wilson is right, current evolution theory has nothing to do with basic concepts like math. The popular TV talk shows will give you a much better idea of what you need to know.
12 Responses to Not only is there no scientific method, but biology does not need math – says prominent evolutionary biologist
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ll never forget the first time I heard of evo psych. A friend of mine introduced me to one saying “This is so-and-so and she is an evolutionary psychologist”. My first words to her were “You’re a what?!!?”
I find it ironic that he used the word “immeasurable” haha
Charles Darwin wasn’t much of a mathematician. In his autobiography, he writes that he studied math as a young man but also remembers that “it was repugnant to me.”,,, Which is well for math finds Darwinism ‘repugnant’:
@News:
“(…) biology does not need math – says prominent evolutionary biologist”
No, he doesn’t. Please do better next time.
Though I agree with you that Wilson didn’t say that, you could be more gentle in your rebuke, it sounds like you are scolding someone.
I’m YEC but amen to this wilson guy.
Math is irrelevant to discovery and invention of cool things now and in the past just as learning latin was irrelevant to to getting out of the dark ages.
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
All the math in the world never undid evolutionary biology error or helped it.
Math in fact frustrates a sharper thinking in regards to Gods nature.
Imagination will be doused by mulling over number crunching.
Only in probability ideas can math help debunk evolution and all that is just numerical representation of common sense.
I dunno. I’m with JWTruthInLove on this one.
Surely many defenders of Darwinism shy away from the probabilities and the math. But the quotes from Wilson in the OP don’t support the OP’s title. Wilson is talking about “exceptional” mathematical skills not being required. Certainly it is true that much of science gets along quite nicely without what might be required in some specialty disciplines.
Yes, Wilson obviously DOES think math is important to his field, which is why, as mentioned in the article, he regularly collaborated with mathematicians throughout his career. And so the reason why exceptional math skills aren’t a requirement is because one can work with others who do have such exceptional skills.
And Wilson continued taking math classes – even as a tenured professor – to build his math skills.
I’m not in full agreement with everything in the article, but the spin being put on Wilson’s article is simply wrong.
H’mm:
Let’s clip a bit more of that editorial, which is saying to objectors, how dare you get angry at the “Academic freedom” expressed in our journal:
Methinks I find here a turnabout moral equivalency accusation, meant to poison the well.
And, it seems that — true to the manipulation game — the editorial misrepresents. Let us hear the abstract of the paper, which is so short that failure to cite it in extenso is telling:
In short,t he powerful get to decide who is convenient to live, even with no excuse of disability.
MONSTROUS!
Introduction:
Then, the newspeak, doubletalk manipulation of language game and where it goes:
Utterly monstrous, machiavellian, narcissistic [how dare you object, we are the academic elites exercising our minds in free speech] and sociopathic.
The dark triad in action.
KF
OOPS, cross-posed by accident, forgive. KF
‘The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible.’
Why not make ‘murder in the first degree’ up to the age of majority, legal? Whats the odds (or in formal parlance, ‘the difference’)?
Well, as for the mathematical odds, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ springs to mind. In real life, worse has been perpetrated by eminent physicians in the past century. I mean apart from Mengele.
@scordova
You’re right. I’m sorry… I’ll do better next time. 🙂
And let’s all follow kairosfocus’ example in crtitiquing stuff: