On 08/10/2007, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No, this isn't true, biologists need the math now
more than ever.
It is not possible for an unassisted human to do anything useful with
the X ray diffraction pattern of a protein (it is possible for a
chemical of greater simplicity but there is little point in doing so.
It's nice to think that you can do math without
understanding it,
The computer does the math. The job of the human is to work out which
bits of the result it spits out are sane. While some knowledge of the
basic principles may come in handy a completely knowledge of the
relevant areas of chemistry is somewhat more useful
but
I do love being asked by PhDs to explain something to them because
they don't understand it because they don't have the math background.
I work in a technical field, and I produce results faster, more
accurately, and in a more interesting fashion than the other
technicians I work with who are clueless and limited by their math.
And better results than the researchers who are also clueless and
limited by their relatively low level math skills. It will be nice
for me job wise if people keep thinking like you, but the literature
we go through in discussions every day makes it absolutley clear that
scientists and technicians need more math not less, and departments
are upping the basic requirements for math. Grad students used to be
able to get in without the math background, making it up in their
first year or so--not the same case now.
How many chemists do you think can do Fourier transforms? a handful
maybe? Now how many can do extremely useful stuff with NMRs and
FT-IRs?
The templates are to warn readers not to trust the
content of the
article for specific reasons.
Not usefully.
I don't know what you're saying with this last
sentence.
NPOV and fact tags warn readers wikify and {{Expert}} do not.
--
geni