Biology... tricks and accidents

I approached Feynman after one of his Cornell lectures in 1964 for advice about how best to move into mathematical biophysics from engineering physics as I had planned when choosing Cornell. He cautioned against any such move, on grounds that biology is too much a matter of tricks and accidents of evolution, and too complex for useful mathematical representations. I believe that that is correct, on average, but the rich diversity of living nature provides many niches for peculiar questions and aptitudes.

---A. T. Winfree (2001) The Geometry of Biological Time

This can probably be said about "useful neurophysiological representations" as well. Most modern neurophysiologists blindly assume that their practice, foundationally based on isolated invertebrate preparations, is universally applicable to the complex neocortical network, during the complex function of cognition. However, this assumption is actually a hypothesis, and one which is not necessarily trivial.

Strong Inference

To paraphrase an old saying, Beware of the man of one method or one instrument, either experimental or theoretical. He tends to become method-oriented rather than problem-oriented. The method-oriented man is shackled; the problem-oriented man is at least reaching freely toward what is most important. Strong inference redirects a man to problem-orientation, but it requires him to be willing repeatedly to put aside his last methods and teach himself new ones.
--JR Platt (1964) "Strong Inference" Science 146:347-

I do not necessarily agree with the "strong inference" argument, especially at the forefronts of modern biology, where the assumptions going into experimental design (including assumptions related to experimental methods) are so complicated, that conclusive disproval of any "hypothesis" with sufficient aesthetic appeal is usually hard to come by.

This is especially true if you are dealing with higher brain functions, since the phenomena are complex (e.g. every time a human sees a flower, this experience is unique, and depends upon mood, hormonal state, directly preceeding sensory experiences, past associations, etc.), as are the emergent neural activity patterns which one would like to link the phenomena to.

However, I do agree in terms of the limitations of "method-oriented science." I think at the forefronts of modern biology, the only way to overcome the limitations of this "method-oriented" nature is to become "methods-oriented," i.e. oriented toward several strategically chosen methods.

Finding your own voice

[Robin Williams on how he realized he had something unique to offer]

I was trying to find a unique voice versus a combination of other things. There was a big benefit show one night in San Francisco, and I really started to have a good time. I thought, "Hey, this is me! This isn't like Jonathan Winters or something." (Winters is one of Williams' biggest influences.) Everyone starts off kind of being someone else.

--US Airways inflight magazine

Attribution of thoughts

Much of what I have to say has been stimulated by sources other than those I can cite or recall. A student's question, a colleague's comment, a paragraph or phrase read in a context now forgotten, a deep insight expressed by a scholar far more capable than I--all have stimulated my thinking in ways that I can no longer trace. Similarly, an absurdity in another writer's presentation or even a poorly designed and interpreted experiment may have strongly influenced my point of view. To all these now invisible sources, I am grateful.

-- W. R. Uttal, The New Phrenology, Acknowledgements

Quote of the Month... Jaunuary 2007

...if any sufficiently large segment of science is measured in any reasonable way, the normal mode of growth is exponential...exponential growth eventually reaches some limit, at which the process must slacken and stop before reaching absurdity. ... [in the saturation phase,] clearly there will be rapidly increasing concern over those problems of manpower, literature, and expenditure that demand solution by reorganization...

...the effort to gain more scientists increases the number at the lower levels at a greater rate than it does those on the higher levels... At a certain point it may no longer be worthwhile to sacrifice so much to increase inducements and opportunities when the only result is a declining overall standard...

...Once we are committed to paying scientists according to their value or the demand for their services, instead of giving them, as we give other dedicated groups, merely an opportunity to survive, there seems no way back. It seems to me evident that the scientists who receive the just and proper award of such recognition are not the same sort of scientists as those who lived under the old regime, in which society almost dared them to exist...

...From modern studies of creative ability in the scientific fields it appears that general and specific types of intelligence have surprisingly little to do with the incidence of high achievement. At best, a certain rather high minimum is needed, but once over that hump the chance of becoming a scientist of high achievement seems almost random...

-- Derek de Solla Price, 1963, Little Science, Big Science

Survival value in evolution

It is often argued that if nature took the trouble to create the cortex in a certain way, it must have a value for the survival of the species. However, "survival value" does not necessarily imply better functioning in the adult years. Instead, it may mean a better chance for environmental adaptation at an early age, or a more efficient use of the genetic code that is required for the growth of the cortex in the embryo.

-- M. Abeles, Corticonics, p. 40