Tag: Scientific Process

Why We Model

There is still considerable skepticism in many quarters regarding the utility of mathematical models in molecular biology. Those of us who do model are frequently required to justify our activities. The preferred justification is the ‘you can’t argue with success’ rationale, which can be used in cases where you already have a working model on hand that’s generating accurate predictions and yielding useful insights.

Unfortunately, in cases where you have yet to build that model, it is necessary to resort to other, more long-winded justifications for modeling. This Gilman and Arkin review nicely sums up the reasons I typically give for modeling:

The detailed models we examine demonstrate the principal strength of modeling: It is a means to formulate all available knowledge about a system in as precise a manner as possible Continue reading “Why We Model”

Predator X: Too Bad Ass for Peer-Review?

Predator X (Atlantic Productions publicity illustration)

Suffice it to say that earning the title Predator X should require a resume loaded with specific instances of statistically significant bad assery[1]. Big fangs or some kung fu lessons might get you Predator L or, even, E, but we are talking about Predator Freaking X here. By law, Predator X must be one bad mother. . .

Shut your mouth!
I’m talking ’bout Predator X.
Then we can dig it.

Predator X[2] was a pliosaur, a group of prehistoric marine reptiles (within the order plesiosauria) characterized by large body size, long heads, short necks, conical teeth, four flippers, and eating tasty things that had the misfortune to be smaller than them. Basically, pliosaurs were sea monsters, and sea monsters are already pretty bad ass.

Artist impression of the pliosaur Liopleurodon (by Nobu Tamura - CC 3.0)

Originally discovered in 2006, Predator X was the subject of a History channel documentary in 2009. Predator X was the subject of all manner of articles with the notable exception of the academic, peer-reviewed variety[3]. Hmmm, the publicize before peer-review strategy sounds familiar to me.

What makes Predator X deserve all this attention? According to the team from the University of Oslo Natural History Museum Predator X stands out even in a clade of sea monsters:

Its anatomy, physiology and hunting strategy all point to it being the ultimate predator – the most dangerous creature to patrol the Earth’s oceans – quoted in New Scientist (link to original press release no longer available[4])

Wait, did I just say University of Oslo Natural History Museum? What does that remind me of? Continue reading “Predator X: Too Bad Ass for Peer-Review?”

Zombie Feynman vs The Special Girl Powers

If there is one lesson from SexyGate (the kerfuffle following Sheril Kirshenbaum’s inclusion on a “sexy scientist” list[1]), it is that actions have consequences, long-range, important, and potentially ironic consequences, for which you shall be held responsible. Consequences like drawing the attention of the hedonistic proletariat to the “sexy scientist” list and giving many the excuse to consider the potentially related[2] question: “Is science sexist?”

There were a number of thought-provoking answers. Alexandra Jellicoe’s article was advertised as both unusual and interesting, but was neither. While most commentators examined sexism in the institutions we use to do science, Jellicoe spent her non-raging-lesbian-feminist thunder[3] on the fundamental process of science. Continue reading “Zombie Feynman vs The Special Girl Powers”

Statistical Importance, in Architecture

Art is a subjective experience. Just like those hippie artists to fly in the face of the millenia old of tradition[1] of putting things in order so that we might judge one another. As we know that the average human being is quite likely to go around enjoying just any old piece of art that they find appealing without requiring a full understanding of the work’s place in society, history, and artistic development, it is extremely important that we regularly convene panels of experts to tell us what is good and important. The only other option is chaos. And, as everyone knows from post-apocalyptic novels, chaos always leads to eating babies. The American Film Institute has made a cottage industry out of producing ranked list of mostly American films, providing a convenient framework to demonstrate that almost all arguments over cinematic preference stem from the other person being a cultural Philistine[2]. Vanity Fair has now weighed into the fray of artistic judgment with “Architecture’s Modern Marvels”, a ranked list of the “most important works of architecture created since 1980”.

What, if anything, do these ranked lists tell us about works of art?

Continue reading “Statistical Importance, in Architecture”

What a real scientific discussion looks like

John Timmer on some climate change back-and-forth.

After reviewing debates over two papers published in American Geophysical Union journals,

These situations tell us a couple of valuable things about the current state of climate science. First of all, they make it obvious that papers that go against the consensus can still get published, even when they come from people who very notably fall outside the scientific community’s mainstream. And, in fact, the scientific community takes these things seriously—seriously enough to check the math and examine the data sources.
Continue reading “What a real scientific discussion looks like”