How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens • Hacker News Board

Re: How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens

#61

Post by leephillips » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

safeignorance wrote: post #42

smt88 wrote: post #27

Did he create opportunities for himself, or did he live in a country where other taxpayers covered the cost of his college education? He's an impressive person, but "poor guy pulled himself up by the bootstraps using sheer force of will" narratives usually fall apart when you look more closely.

An American without a high school diploma or GED convinced a seriously good German university to admit him. That's pretty impressive. If I were in his situation, there's no way I would have had the gull to try that route. Probably would've just stayed in the forest service. Maybe gone for a GED then community college then a local land grant. By which time I'd be too burnt out on it all (and too old) to even think abo…

This shows that the Göttingen science faculty is maintaining its centuries-long tradition of taking chances and nurturing scientific talent, without regard to sex, race, or class, often in defiance of the surrounding culture. The most famous example is Emmy Noether:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/the-female-mathematic...

Re: How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens

#62

Post by thieving_magpie » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #58

thieving_magpie wrote: post #18

I lived in Montana for years. The only population of folks that speak German that I'm aware of are Hutterites (German variation of the Amish or Mennonites). If he comes from that group, it makes the story all the more amazing.

They don't name it, but they do strongly hint at it. I bet he got some strange looks when using his arcane German in a modern setting.

Wow, I hadn't thought of that. It would be really interesting to hear about his experiences in his own words.

Re: How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens

#63

Post by semi-extrinsic » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 7:21 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #57

archgoon wrote: post #7

The main revolution 150 years ago was that lichen was not a single organism. I'm not sure if refining that number from 2 to 3 is legitimately "overturning"; I was reading the article expecting them to say that the two organisms were in fact sharing the same DNA and were in fact sexual dimorphs all this time. On the other hand, figuring out why we've been failing to grow lichen by merging the two species manually for…

This is as huge as the discovery of the neutron was for the atomic model. Wasn't that merely redefining the number of elementary particles from two (electron, proton) to three? If you actually read the article you'll find out that the properties of the lichen could not be explained by the two known elements alone, that there was some other factor that nobody could describe. The careful work done here uncovered a thir…

Well, saying this is as huge as the discovery of the neutron for the atomic model is stretching it, IMO. Atoms make up everything, understanding how atomic nuclei are made up has paved the road for huge breakthroughs in not just nuclear physics but also in medicine, energy production, materials physics, etc. Lichen, on the other hand, are, well lichen. If we'd been throwing money on lichen research like we have on nuclear physics, we would have known this a century ago.

Re: How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens

#64

Post by spdustin » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #63

astrodust wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as huge as the discovery of the neutron was for the atomic model. Wasn't that merely redefining the number of elementary particles from two (electron, proton) to three? If you actually read the article you'll find out that the properties of the lichen could not be explained by the two known elements alone, that there was some other factor that nobody could describe. The careful work done here uncovered a thir…

Well, saying this is as huge as the discovery of the neutron for the atomic model is stretching it, IMO. Atoms make up everything, understanding how atomic nuclei are made up has paved the road for huge breakthroughs in not just nuclear physics but also in medicine, energy production, materials physics, etc. Lichen, on the other hand, are, well lichen. If we'd been throwing money on lichen research like we have on nu…

> Atoms make up everything

And that's why you can't trust them. (cue rimshot SFX)

But lichen... You know, now that we have a functional understanding of their biology, I'm quite excited to see what this new knowledge will yield when applied. Pharmacology, materials, food production/processing — "We don't know what we don't know," but having more data helps us to learn what questions we can ask.

Re: How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens

#65

Post by smt88 » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #54

l3m0ndr0p wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything in that article should be open for discussion or debate. If the article didn't mention the education portion, then it would be in appropriate. However, it was mentioned in the article & I think it should be focused on equally for discussion and debate. The discovery is amazing. What's even more impressive is that he received a free education in another country, with a home-schooled background.

For the most part that's no problem, as long as it's done in the spirit of intellectual curiosity and not ideological battle.

My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual. Someone suggested it was too political (or had political motives), and I replied that I wouldn't pretend I'm not political or that the topic isn't political. Plain facts (in this case that Germany has free education and that it creates opportunities) can be highly politically charged, and I don't see that as a reason to shy away from them.

Re: How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens

#66

Post by archgoon » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #57

archgoon wrote: post #7

The main revolution 150 years ago was that lichen was not a single organism. I'm not sure if refining that number from 2 to 3 is legitimately "overturning"; I was reading the article expecting them to say that the two organisms were in fact sharing the same DNA and were in fact sexual dimorphs all this time. On the other hand, figuring out why we've been failing to grow lichen by merging the two species manually for…

This is as huge as the discovery of the neutron was for the atomic model. Wasn't that merely redefining the number of elementary particles from two (electron, proton) to three? If you actually read the article you'll find out that the properties of the lichen could not be explained by the two known elements alone, that there was some other factor that nobody could describe. The careful work done here uncovered a thir…

I most certainly did not say this wasn't huge. However, to extend your analogy, discovering neutrons doesn't overturn the existence of atoms, nor does it overturn the idea that atoms are made up of smaller components.

Anyhow, thats just my perspective. No offense is intended here. This is solid, important work. I'm just quibbling over the headline.

Re: How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens

#67

Post by dang » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #65

dang wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part that's no problem, as long as it's done in the spirit of intellectual curiosity and not ideological battle.

My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual. Someone suggested it was too political (or had political motives), and I replied that I wouldn't pretend I'm not political or that the topic isn't political. Plain facts (in this case that Germany has free education and that it creates opportunities) can be highly politically charged, and I don't see that as a reason to shy away from them.

> My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual.

At a minimum it pointed thither, since government programs and payment for education are politically charged and your comment read as advocacy in that area. You also used ideologically charged language ("poor guy pulled himself up by the bootstraps") which is the opposite of "purely factual". That explains why a user responded with "political bullshit" (which was also bad, btw, since it's name-calling by HN guidelines' standard).