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

241–250 of 282 posts

Re: I should have loved biology

#241

Post by uj8efdkjfdshf »

krallja wrote: post #226
hgomersall wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I found about biology in my limited study of it is that if a physical effect can happen, it's almost certainly used somewhere as a functional effect. I'm regular puzzled that people think that biology is tractable. It seems to me the best we can hope for towards a complete understanding is a computational generative model.

Do you know any examples of semiconductor junctions being used in biological processes? It would be hilarious to me if there was a bacterium out there that just ”invented” a transistor or a diode for some silly reason.

Do cable bacteria[0] count?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_bacteria

Re: I should have loved biology

#242

Post by kimmik »

krallja wrote: post #226
hgomersall wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I found about biology in my limited study of it is that if a physical effect can happen, it's almost certainly used somewhere as a functional effect. I'm regular puzzled that people think that biology is tractable. It seems to me the best we can hope for towards a complete understanding is a computational generative model.

Do you know any examples of semiconductor junctions being used in biological processes? It would be hilarious to me if there was a bacterium out there that just ”invented” a transistor or a diode for some silly reason.

The cell membrane potential and voltage gated ion channels sound exactly like semiconductor to me…

Re: I should have loved biology

#243

Post by akira2501 »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #19

It seems like the larger argument here (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is that the role of skilled teacher (whether it be human, book, YouTube, whatever) simply cannot be understated when it comes to creating that “spark” in a learner to develop and pursue their own passions. What’s interesting to me, and what follows from this, I think, is that we therefore have a lever for creating more passionate people: creat…

> create more extremely skilled teachers.

I think this puts the cart before the horse, and presumes that you can find the right balance of teacher skills to student requirements and that you can maintain that balance year after year.

I honestly think you get more mileage thinking the opposite direction. If you want students with passion and a life long commitment to knowledge, then they're going to need to develop those skills first. At that point, in our modern world, a single oracle of generational knowledge isn't a particularly useful addition.

What you want is generalists that know how to motivate students and to help them find and utilize the resources they need. You might only need a bunch of librarians and proctors and can skip the specialists of the "oral tradition" entirely.

Re: I should have loved biology

#244

Post by kuhewa »

ramraj07 wrote: post #187
Balgair wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having done a lot of biology, I'd disagree that we understand biology. My background is neuro, so take that into account. But in neuro, we've nearly no idea about the larger parts of how it all works. Sure, yeah, electrically active neurons, we have that down. But the non electrically active parts? I mean, we're still debating about how much of the brain is glia. Like, we can't even agree on how to count. Don't get m…

Even in your own example, there’s no ambiguity in the fact that glia play a role is not under question. What percentage, IMO, is just a detail. My analogy still stands I think but I suppose that’s open to interpretation. One question I implore you to ask yourself is how much of this “we don’t fully understand it” attitude comes from indoctrination of that way of thinking that you need to have to write grants and aggr…

But the details is biology.

If we really understood biology, or even just precisely what aspects of a given phenomenon we need to investigate and how in order to understand it, we wouldn't have wasted a decade trying to reduce CVD by increasing HDL. Billions of dollars wouldn't have been wasted chasing the wrong mechanistic hypotheses in Alzheimer's treatment. Cancer would have already been sorted.

Since 15 years ago, extracellular vesicles went from particles used to export rubbish from cells, perhaps with some vague immune involvement, to one of the fundamental mechanisms involved in intercellular communication, carrying nucleic acids between cells.

The reality is the more we understand in biology, the larger we realise biology is and the relative amount of information that still needs to be figured out doesn't change much - especially when you look at it in terms of labour required, because what left is progressively less-low hanging fruit.

Re: I should have loved biology

#245

Post by verisimi »

rsp1984 wrote: post #232

It's not just biology. It's basically every subject in high school. The amount of knowledge in the world has exploded in the last 100 - 150 years, yet our school system refuses to adapt and pretends we're still in the early 1900s. Back then you actually could get a good and reasonably in-depth overview of what makes the world work before going to college or work. But those kinds of aspirations are completely futile t…

Perhaps you're labouring under the illusion that education is for your good as opposed to the good of those who manage people? Why change a winning formula?

Re: I should have loved biology

#246

Post by somethingreen »

rsp1984 wrote: post #232

It's not just biology. It's basically every subject in high school. The amount of knowledge in the world has exploded in the last 100 - 150 years, yet our school system refuses to adapt and pretends we're still in the early 1900s. Back then you actually could get a good and reasonably in-depth overview of what makes the world work before going to college or work. But those kinds of aspirations are completely futile t…

There's an argument that the role of school is not just to dispense knowledge, but to also act as a gym for the student's brain, teaching and training it how to process different kinds and structures of information, how to solve different kinds of problems. And I would add that one aspect of this training is the ability to deal with subjects student isn't particularly interested in.

With this in mind, I don't see what subject would be safe to sacrifice early in school without danger of crippling some aspect of development. And as for mid-high school, I would imagine specialization is already practiced. High school specialization got introduced in a number of schools in my city in the early 90s - pretty much immediately after the collapse of USSR.

Re: I should have loved biology

#248

Post by valenterry »

somethingreen wrote: post #246
rsp1984 wrote: post #232

It's not just biology. It's basically every subject in high school. The amount of knowledge in the world has exploded in the last 100 - 150 years, yet our school system refuses to adapt and pretends we're still in the early 1900s. Back then you actually could get a good and reasonably in-depth overview of what makes the world work before going to college or work. But those kinds of aspirations are completely futile t…

There's an argument that the role of school is not just to dispense knowledge, but to also act as a gym for the student's brain, teaching and training it how to process different kinds and structures of information, how to solve different kinds of problems. And I would add that one aspect of this training is the ability to deal with subjects student isn't particularly interested in. With this in mind, I don't see wha…

> And I would add that one aspect of this training is the ability to deal with subjects student isn't particularly interested in.

What good does it do?

I don't think that you improve the ability to ingest irrelevant information and make them stick. What you can do is to try to trick your brain into thinking it's relevant - but then, why not make it relevant?

In the end, we don't learn for nothing, we learn because it should help us. If one can't answer why something would be helpful, then I say: don't teach it. If it is helpful (even if it's in the far future) then find a way to show that relevance right now or find something for which the learning is helpful _right now_ on top of the actual purpose.

Re: I should have loved biology

#249

Post by Fnoord »

rsp1984 wrote: post #232

It's not just biology. It's basically every subject in high school. The amount of knowledge in the world has exploded in the last 100 - 150 years, yet our school system refuses to adapt and pretends we're still in the early 1900s. Back then you actually could get a good and reasonably in-depth overview of what makes the world work before going to college or work. But those kinds of aspirations are completely futile t…

Specializing earlier means the children must earlier pick their path, when they're even less grown up and sure (some are, some aren't). It could also lead to a defeatist approach when the plan fails. There's something to be said for both generalizing and specialization. Both have their pros and cons, and the latter still happens at e.g. uni (but also bachelors and such).

Sometimes I ponder what would've happened if I'd have been able to start earlier with using computers seriously instead of opposed to gaming on DOS. I end up with the conclusion it doesn't matter, and that pondering about it means I don't accept the current path I've taken.

Re: I should have loved biology

#250

Post by Dudeman112 »

discordance wrote: post #212
april_22 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of things you need to learn in biology is truly hard, though from what I've heard, there's nothing harder than quantum physics, since it's so fundamentally different from how we're used to seeing things.

Don't believe the hype. Follow the math where your instincts fail you. Check out HyperPhysics if you haven't seen it. Provides a super useful map where you can see how all the concepts relate and how they fit together: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

>Follow the math where your instincts fail you

I think that's his point. Your instincts fail you all the time when studying stuff smaller than atoms

Most people don't have a gut feeling for overriding their instincts in favour of math. In fact, when you read some behavioural sciences you'll notice that overriding math with your instincts is the norm

Post reply on HN