Mules to MICROBES

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » Mules to MICROBES

Page 1 of 1

Author

Message

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:18 am

Guest

This old layman just got to musing this morning about how GENERALIZING about
almost anything is risky if, that is, one wishes to be somewhat "right" in
what he asserts.

It could not have been more than a year ago that I read the flat out
statement that science was knocking at the
nano door, so to speak, and had not yet been let in... meaning that the nano
level was about the limit beyond which modern technology could detect what
was going on, manipulate anything, or understand anything.

If that were said today, it would be quite wrong. And this old thinker's
feeling is that it probably was wrong a year ago, although some of the
technology and some of the work at the frontiers of some fields, such as
industrial microbe utilizations and experimentations with electron
microscopy (which now have come up with many "solutions" for manipulating,
measuring, observing things at FRACTIONS of nano level surely were in the
pipeline.

Designer microbes can -- if this old thinker has it right -- today apply
layers, on industrial products such as microchips, thinner, more evenly, and
more flawlessly... than any non-biological process. And Hamamatsu currently
is advertising its state of the art "quantitative phase microscopy," which
is for sale right now and is
capable of observing what is going on inside LIVING cells. (Electron
microscopy, until recently could be used to see and measure some things
inside DEAD cells, but not living ones.) Now quantitative phase microscopy
can observe and measure things at BELOW nano level, AS THEY HAPPEN inside
a cell and in increments of
milliseconds (Hamamatsu claims... and, if they are not just talking but
SELLING those cotton pickers, then evidently it's not just brag; its fact).

So, anyhow, just sittin' and thinkin' I got to thinking about how people
were dependent for lots of things barely more than a century ago on
livestock such as mules and horses. And, of course, there were some smaller
animals put to work, such as burros and dogs... but one of the most-used
animals for getting WORK done were mules.
(Of course oxen could drag a wheel-less cart down a muddy road, where mules
could not... but when the weather was nice mules and camels and horses did
okay. But mules were by far the most used for gittin' work done.)

Then I thought of a sort of a generalization (like most generalizations, not
perfect by far, but approximately true), and that would be this:

The difference in man's work animals, from just over a century ago to now is
mostly in the sizes of our livestock.
We've done gone FROM MULES TO MICROBES in barely a hundred years.

Dang!

(:>)

g

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:50 am

Guest

Talkin' about mules to microbes. That's just one way of lookin' at it.

Think about this. One day one of the kids came home with a cat
someone had given him. Cat hair tickles my nose. I mean, not only
does it tickle, but it causes my nose to drip. In fact, it causes my nose
to drip so profusely that a whole box of nose-blow tissues is not
enough. A large bath towel is better. If I soak one bath towel, shucks,
we have a whole stack of them in the closet. But, then, dog hair
doesn't seem to necessitate either bunches of boxes of Kleenex or
bath towels, either one.

So I called a veterinarian I know and asked him, how many cats there
are in the world, and how many dogs. And the vet said he read
somewhere that there are about 2 cats to every dog in the world.

Now I knew a little math, so I sat down and wrote out a formula
expressing this. I let dogs be A and cats be B. And the way math
works, I knew that this could be expressed as A = 2B.

Also, I knew a little something about grafts... such as that if you
take a piece of one critter and graft it onto another one, it most
likely will be rejected; but if the two critters are twins, the chances
are better than tissue from one will not be rejected by the other.

There it was... simple as that.

I called Billy and said, "Billy ask the lady who gave you that cat
if she has an identical twin for it."

"Why?," Billy asked.

"Well," I explained, "because we can sew two cats together and
git a dog. And then I won't have to carry this bath towel around
the house all the time."

My wife called the vet and asked him if that would work, and he
said heck no. That was silly.

Silly? Not as silly as some of the things I've read in which some
phsychological and philosophical think papers. Sometimes math
gets substituted for some awfully silly conclusions.

Okay, so what name can we give to the two cats equal one dog picture
FOR PURPOSES OF reaching a solution to my towel problem.

First of all, equal signs don't always mean two things are the same
animal. The sometimes just act like a forward slash indicating a
ratio. But wait, now. How can an equal sign do the same thing as
a divide by sign. Well, it doesn't actually but, you see, a person can
sort of figure out how to take what he knows about what in terms of
something else equals, FOR PURPOSES OF one very narrowly
circumscribed scenario, some amount of something else, and sort of
see that you can play around with substituting an equal sign and a
number of one thing and divide something by something else and
come out with something that is not wrong as long as it is FOR
PURPOSES OF some carefully thought through application. That's
sort of what is meant by "applied math." You get a math equation
or formula and you can play around with it and come up with some
useful information, if you think through the application, and make
sure you don't get confused.

But sometimes I see some ways that some research data are used,
and the things they come up with just don't seem to *LET THE
WAY NATURE BEHAVES CONTROL THE MATH MODEL*.

Sometimes, danged if it doesn't look like somebody has forgotten
to use the math only in ways that fit the way nature works in a given
context. I've never seen any of 'em say you can sew two cats together
and git a dog. But sometimes math models seem to be cited as proof
for some things that nobody can prove or disprove.

Oh, yes. They can prove the math is right. What they can't prove is
that nature behaves just any old way you take the math and claim it
to.

If there's a way to say this that any researcher can understand, maybe
it's this way:

Valid logic never lies;
When it's used where it APPLIES !
Nature always follows math;
Man can misconstrue the PATH !
So now one thing may substitute
And elsewhere seem sublimely cute
But there, it may turn out be
Sillier than dumb ol' me.

g

g

I can express the number of classrooms in a school IN TERMS OF
the average number of kids per classroom. If there are 600 kids, at
an average of 30 per classroom (hey, it HAPPENS, dude) then I can
express the number of classrooms as 600/30 = 20 classrooms. So
far, so good. Now I could reason that since 30 kids equal one
classroom that, next fall, if we have 30 more kids enroll than this
year, then we'll have 21 classrooms. That means we don't have to
come up with any bricks or mortar or hire laborers or anything.

Expressing one thing IN TERMS OF another, and putting some
kind of symbol between them, does NOT make them equal in any
way other than the narrow context in which an "EQUIVALANCE"
works.

This is not to say there are not SENSIBLE ways to express one
thing in terms of another. But when the equivalence scenario that
works is replaced by a different application, it can get ... well... as
silly as some of the things some researchers come up with... like,
for example, some of the research that showed a few decades back
which deomonstrated such things as that smoking tobacco did not
cause cancer.

So much for "IN TERMS OF."

What about "FOR PURPOSES OF?." Let's see now... For purposes
of letting Billy have a pet, and having me not have to carry a towel
around all the time, sewing two
cats together won't work out.

IRR

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:02 am

Guest

Quote:

So I called a veterinarian I know and asked him, how many cats there
are in the world, and how many dogs. And the vet said he read
somewhere that there are about 2 cats to every dog in the world.

Now I knew a little math, so I sat down and wrote out a formula
expressing this. I let dogs be A and cats be B. And the way math
works, I knew that this could be expressed as A = 2B.
[...]
Oh, yes. They can prove the math is right. What they can't prove is
that nature behaves just any old way you take the math and claim it
to.

So it's probably even harder to do if the math is wrong to begin with?

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:33 am

Guest

"IRR" <iotarhorho@REMOV3hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ep358n$eae$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

Quote:

Thanks for reading and commenting, but your brief statement is ambiguous in
the sense that you do not make clear what you mean by the words "math is
wrong." The term "math" is so broad as to mean many things. And the term
"wrong" is, as well.

If you will make very, very clear disambiguations as to what you mean IN
THIS STATEMENT by "math" and "wrong," you will enable me to respond to
whatever it is you mean. Otherwise, I would have to guess what you mean by
each of these terms IN THE STATEMENT you made.

(It would be naive of you or me to argue the question "What is math?" That
would be comparable to arguing "Which way is up?" "Up" to a person in
Australia, at any given instant, is not the same direction as up to a person
in New York city, at that same instant. So it would be naive for the two of
the argue which of them is right. And so it is with the term "math."

The word is far more useful than the word "up." But, just as with the word
"up" one must -- if he would say anything concerning it, including whether
it is "right" or "wrong" needs to orient his own thinking and the thinking
of one with whom he would communicate any meaningful thing, by designating a
sufficient number of parameters pertaining to what he would mean... if
anything by making a statement.

Perhaps you would wish to clarify the statement you made, and perhaps
designate whether it conflicts with one or more of the following statements
which, I think, are less ambiguous...

1. Math is many things, but all of them logical.
2. What is not logical is not math (the converse of # 1).
3. Logic and math are synonymous.
4. Errors can be made in "working through" a math (i.e., logic)
calculation; but what ensues is not logical.
5. That which contains an error is not "logical" (by definition).
6. Where a particular logic (i.e. math) model does not apply, and
accurate empirical facts are "fed into it" the result is not applicable.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on... and therefore I won't
(which is intended to mean that the process of trying to respond to any and
every possible meaning that could be attached to the words "math is wrong"
in your statement above, would be more work than I (or any reader, reading
your statement) might wish to undertake.

For all I know you may have meant to express agreement and support of point
I made. There's no way I can know, so far.

To discuss "math" exhaustively would take thousands of minds thousands of
years... if not forever. And I merely would make a point or two pertaining
to what I perceive to be some common misperceptions about formal logic.

If you disambiguate your statement, however, perhaps it may speak to the
point I wished to make... or perhaps not.
Thanks, in any event, for expressing interest,

g

DrBenway

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:38 am

Guest

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:33:37 -0500 (EST), "g"
<gillawton@earthlink.net> wrote:

Quote:

"IRR" <iotarhorho@REMOV3hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ep358n$eae$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
So I called a veterinarian I know and asked him, how many cats there
are in the world, and how many dogs. And the vet said he read
somewhere that there are about 2 cats to every dog in the world.

Now I knew a little math, so I sat down and wrote out a formula
expressing this. I let dogs be A and cats be B. And the way math
works, I knew that this could be expressed as A = 2B.

DOA!
You have inverted A and B

2 cats to every dog
let dogs be A and cats be B
therefore
B=2A or A= B/2

NOT as you stated A=2B

At that point it becomes really hard for me or anyone
to spend time reading any further
No matter what point you were trying to make

I hope thats clear enough

DB

Quote:

[...]
Oh, yes. They can prove the math is right. What they can't prove is
that nature behaves just any old way you take the math and claim it
to.

So it's probably even harder to do if the math is wrong to begin with?

Thanks for reading and commenting, but your brief statement is ambiguous in
the sense that you do not make clear what you mean by the words "math is
wrong." The term "math" is so broad as to mean many things. And the term
"wrong" is, as well.

If you will make very, very clear disambiguations as to what you mean IN
THIS STATEMENT by "math" and "wrong," you will enable me to respond to
whatever it is you mean. Otherwise, I would have to guess what you mean by
each of these terms IN THE STATEMENT you made.

(It would be naive of you or me to argue the question "What is math?" That
would be comparable to arguing "Which way is up?" "Up" to a person in
Australia, at any given instant, is not the same direction as up to a person
in New York city, at that same instant. So it would be naive for the two of
the argue which of them is right. And so it is with the term "math."

The word is far more useful than the word "up." But, just as with the word
"up" one must -- if he would say anything concerning it, including whether
it is "right" or "wrong" needs to orient his own thinking and the thinking
of one with whom he would communicate any meaningful thing, by designating a
sufficient number of parameters pertaining to what he would mean... if
anything by making a statement.

Perhaps you would wish to clarify the statement you made, and perhaps
designate whether it conflicts with one or more of the following statements
which, I think, are less ambiguous...

1. Math is many things, but all of them logical.
2. What is not logical is not math (the converse of # 1).
3. Logic and math are synonymous.
4. Errors can be made in "working through" a math (i.e., logic)
calculation; but what ensues is not logical.
5. That which contains an error is not "logical" (by definition).
6. Where a particular logic (i.e. math) model does not apply, and
accurate empirical facts are "fed into it" the result is not applicable.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on... and therefore I won't
(which is intended to mean that the process of trying to respond to any and
every possible meaning that could be attached to the words "math is wrong"
in your statement above, would be more work than I (or any reader, reading
your statement) might wish to undertake.

For all I know you may have meant to express agreement and support of point
I made. There's no way I can know, so far.

To discuss "math" exhaustively would take thousands of minds thousands of
years... if not forever. And I merely would make a point or two pertaining
to what I perceive to be some common misperceptions about formal logic.

If you disambiguate your statement, however, perhaps it may speak to the
point I wished to make... or perhaps not.
Thanks, in any event, for expressing interest,

g

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:35 am

Guest

"DrBenway" <DB@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:ep85ir$291e$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

Quote:

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:33:37 -0500 (EST), "g"
gillawton@earthlink.net> wrote:

"IRR" <iotarhorho@REMOV3hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ep358n$eae$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
So I called a veterinarian I know and asked him, how many cats there
are in the world, and how many dogs. And the vet said he read
somewhere that there are about 2 cats to every dog in the world.

Now I knew a little math, so I sat down and wrote out a formula
expressing this. I let dogs be A and cats be B. And the way math
works, I knew that this could be expressed as A = 2B.

DOA!
You have inverted A and B

Thank you veddy much. What amazes me is that no one has pointed out to me
that the term microbes is technically not in use and, if it were, it would
refer to pathogens, which normally applies to "living" things such as
bacteria and fungi. And, my errors do not end there. In just trying to be
cute about the change in the size of "livestock" I took even more liberties
that that... because the little boogers I had just read about -- which are
used for putting on sub-microscopically thin layer of stuff on electronic
"wafers" are viruses.

Thanks for checking the math. Evidently no microbiologists read to check my
trivial little cutesy attempts at humor.

(:>)

g
(

Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:08 pm Science Forum Index