Closed MKLau closed 10 years ago
Instead of asking whether we believe a model’s conclusions, we should be asking whether we believe the model’s assumptions. What basis do we have for doing so?
Sensing which assumptions might be critical and which irrelevant to the question at hand is the art of modeling and, for this, there is no substitute for a deep understanding of the biology. Good model building is a subjective exercise, dependent on local information and expertise, and contingent upon current knowledge.
The Heinrich-Rapaport Model suggests that this characteristic morphology may emerge dynamically, merely as a result of the right proteins being present along with the right lipids. This would be a form of epigenetic inheritance. in contrast to the usual genetic encoding of DNA. Of course, DNA never functions on its own, only in concert with a cell. The Heinrich-Rapaport model reminds us that the cell is the basic unit of life. Somebody really ought to test the model.
We are in the infancy of learning how to learn from each other.
...set many similar parameters to the same value, leaving a relatively small number of free parameters. Biological detail was balanced by parametric parsimony. The free parameters were then heroically estimated in independent experiments.
To be so successful, a detailed model relies on a powerful experimental platform.
Darwin and Mendel represent the qualitative and quantitative traditions in biology. It is a historical tragedy that they never came together in their lifetimes.
A mathematical model is a machine for converting assumptions into conclusions.
But, and this is the essential point, the certainty is always relative to the assumptions.
The microscopic complexity seems to have conspired to produce something beautifully simple at the macroscopic level.
It is as if we are seeing a tantalizing glimpse of some future science whose concepts and methods remain barely visible to us in the present. Every time I think about it, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.