Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I should have loved biology

jsomers.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 282 posts

Re: I should have loved biology

#91

Post by thanatos519 »

bonniemuffin wrote: post #88
bognition wrote: post #8

There is a large gap between the mechanisms of chemistry and the magic of biology that most people do not see closed until late in their education. It's a real shame that this gap cannot be closed sooner. In undergrad I took a bunch of biology and chemistry classes. It wasn't until I took Biochemistry (a senior level class) that everything came together. The biochemistry class I took was a re-telling of all the stori…

I recall the same "everything coming together" feeling, but for me it didn't happen until Applied Biochemistry in grad school. I recall the final exam being only a single question, with a bunch of blank lined pages to write your answer, and the question was something like "You just ate a ham sandwich. What happens to it?" A good answer needed to include everything down to the molecular/chemical level and tie it toget…

I love it! Much like the "I type a URL into my browser and press enter. What happens?" tech interview question.

Re: I should have loved biology

#93

Post by jwuphysics »

localhost wrote: post #60

I have a PhD in Organic Chemistry and just last week I visited my PhD supervisor's research group. My research was on understanding the mechanism of enzyme-catalyzed decarboxylation reactions. This is very detailed physical-organic reaction kinetics to seek to understand the basis for some of the remarkable acceleration that the enzyme provides (10^6) over model systems in aqueous solution. Reflecting on this, I find…

> Consider this question - look outside at a tree. Where did all the carbon in the tree come from?

I assume that you are referencing the famous 1983 interview with Feynman, in which he playfully says that "trees come out of the air!" For anyone who hasn't heard the interview, it's definitely worth a listen: https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/09/25/161753383/t...

Re: I should have loved biology

#94

Post by TheCoreh »

The obsession with taxonomy and categorization really ruins a lot of subjects in school. It kinda makes sense _why_ they are covered like this: It's really easy to “split” the syllabus into even chunks; it is a good fit for the memorization-based study techniques that are pervasive and it leads to a very “homogenous” learning experience regardless of the maturity and interests of each student.

My main problem with it is that it leads to very rigid thought structures devoid of curiosity or contextualization: The belief that the map is the terrain; that the universe is static, predetermined and discretely categorized under conveniently human terms; that scientific knowledge is either divined or standardized by a class of bureaucrats; that things are sorted over a “rank” of lesser to greater according to a direction towards objective progress.

It also generally sucks out a lot of the “fun” of learning about the world (though I understand sometimes taxonomy/categorization _can_ be fun in its own right).

As an example, grammar only really “clicked” with me when I was already in college: I was finally able to see it outside of the “prescriptive memorization hell” that I was subjected to in school, and instead perceive it under descriptive terms of Computer Science.

Re: I should have loved biology

#95

Post by dkarl »

localhost wrote: post #60

I have a PhD in Organic Chemistry and just last week I visited my PhD supervisor's research group. My research was on understanding the mechanism of enzyme-catalyzed decarboxylation reactions. This is very detailed physical-organic reaction kinetics to seek to understand the basis for some of the remarkable acceleration that the enzyme provides (10^6) over model systems in aqueous solution. Reflecting on this, I find…

> Consider this question - look outside at a tree. Where did all the carbon in the tree come from? You may have heard that carbon fixation in plants use a process called "photosynthesis" that involves iron ions. Where did the iron come from? If only we taught by using storytelling techniques and posing questions to students, perhaps we might have more engagement with science than we have today.

I think that level of storytelling is already routine in science education. It just lands differently with different people, especially at different ages. That's why those "things they didn't teach you in school" books are mostly full of things they really did teach you in school, because many people people who are hostile to a subject as teenagers are fascinated by it later. A kid I went to high school with sent an email to a bunch of us about 7-8 years after graduation because he was learning some information about American history that shocked and fascinated him, and he was really worked up about us not being taught it in school. He thought it had intentionally been withheld from us so we would have a rosy picture of our history and our government, but it was all standard bits of American history we were taught in history class. He remembered being bored in class, so he assumed this information wasn't shared with us, but it was, it just wasn't interesting to him at that point in his life.

Re: I should have loved biology

#96

Post by s1artibartfast »

bognition wrote: post #8

There is a large gap between the mechanisms of chemistry and the magic of biology that most people do not see closed until late in their education. It's a real shame that this gap cannot be closed sooner. In undergrad I took a bunch of biology and chemistry classes. It wasn't until I took Biochemistry (a senior level class) that everything came together. The biochemistry class I took was a re-telling of all the stori…

I had a similar revelation for structural biology, applying the physics I learned for bridges and buildings to microscopic proteins. They are structurally like a cathedral built by a blind and deranged architect. The fact that mechanically bend, pivot, and move like a complex machine at a micro scale to do real work is the most sci-fi thing I can conceive of.

Think of a even a simple walking protein like Kinesin [1]. What is not shown in the video is that this is all happening in a hurricane of molecules battering it from all sides. Each part of the structure is being pushed, pulled, bent, robot made out of sticks and rubber bands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8

Re: I should have loved biology

#97

Post by repple »

TheCoreh wrote: post #94

The obsession with taxonomy and categorization really ruins a lot of subjects in school. It kinda makes sense _why_ they are covered like this: It's really easy to “split” the syllabus into even chunks; it is a good fit for the memorization-based study techniques that are pervasive and it leads to a very “homogenous” learning experience regardless of the maturity and interests of each student. My main problem with it…

It seems that taxonomy is what you would like to learn only after the subject piqued your interest, in my experience, looking back at early school years. Prior to gaining interest, it felt like such a drudgery. After that, however, it’s like an map to navigate the subject matter. It becomes fun in itself, as you point out. I guess it’s a level of abstraction preferred by folks with expertise, but less so by beginners.

Re: I should have loved biology

#99

Post by imaltont »

bognition wrote: post #8

There is a large gap between the mechanisms of chemistry and the magic of biology that most people do not see closed until late in their education. It's a real shame that this gap cannot be closed sooner. In undergrad I took a bunch of biology and chemistry classes. It wasn't until I took Biochemistry (a senior level class) that everything came together. The biochemistry class I took was a re-telling of all the stori…

I feel the same way about just math in general, and all the sciences that derive a lot of their knowledge and systems from it. You start learning math as just high level/abstracted away things where you just have to memorize that this thing does that and in this case do this instead, especially derivation I remember they showed us the formula with dy/dx, but they never showed us any proofs of why or how that lead to the different outcomes, we just had to memorize.

Meanwhile, later when you get to higher education, math just kind of explode into this creative problem solving field with loads of interesting problems and ways to reason about them, but you almost have to relearn it/properly learn the basics over again when you get there, because you never learned why or how the basics works, just the input and output of the basics.

Post reply on HN