On 08/10/2007, K P kpbotany@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.