A recent article titled "Great Scientist ≠ Good at Math" by Harvard Biologist E. O. Wilson has caught a lot of attention. The article is based on a recently published book. A central message of the article is roughly that mathematical grounding is not important for scientists. The same points have also been made in a recent talk by Wilson (especially from 5.35 onwards):
Although Wilson makes some valid points in the article as well as in the video, he appears to be overly dismissive about the role of mathematics in formalizing ideas and building models. What also struck me was the subtitle of the article:
It was pleasing to see that a psychology professor and computer science professor have written a brief but effective reply to the article. The reply concludes with the following lines:
Although Wilson makes some valid points in the article as well as in the video, he appears to be overly dismissive about the role of mathematics in formalizing ideas and building models. What also struck me was the subtitle of the article:
"E.O. Wilson shares a secret: Discoveries emerge from ideas, not number-crunching".The subtitle seems to equate mathematics to number-crunching which I found to frankly be ignorant of the fact that mathematicians highly value elegant ideas and beautiful arguments.
It was pleasing to see that a psychology professor and computer science professor have written a brief but effective reply to the article. The reply concludes with the following lines:
Scientific creation can be largely mathematical, partly mathematical or not at all mathematical but it is always intense, detailed, difficult and self-critical. In the modern era, few succeed in their endeavours without a firm mathematical background.
