Mathematics has ruined science for me

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the dissatisfaction of a student who transitioned from mathematical physics to business and biology, finding both fields unengaging compared to the rigor of mathematics. The student expresses boredom with business courses, particularly microeconomics, and frustration with biology's lack of depth in understanding concepts like proteins and cells. Chemistry is also deemed tedious, lacking the mathematical rigor previously experienced. The individual reflects on a potential "withdrawal syndrome" from the intellectual challenges of math and physics, questioning whether this feeling will pass or if a shift back to a more mathematically focused career is necessary. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the struggle of reconciling interests in pure mathematics with the realities of career prospects in science and business.
  • #31
Tac-Tics said:
Math in science is about getting the right answer. Pure mathematics is about proving that, had someone actually bothered to work out the solution, they would be right.

You don't prove empiricism. . .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Howers said:
I'm thinking its withdrawal syndrome from the rigors of math and physics. So hopefully it will pass. But what if its not... I don't want to miserable. Math keeps popping up in my head. Results from real analysis I'm surprised I remember. Will this pass with time? I really need to know because in a few days I won't be able to change courses.
Let me tell a story. May be it'll be an advice.

I graduated from famous for russians Quantum mechanics department, headed by V. Fock.
But there was no appropriate job and i became an engineer in Central Technological Institute of Defence Industry Ministry of USSR.

At the end of 1970 years there was decision to build the plant for superpowertankengine ("37 izdelie") in Kharkov (now Ukraine). The engine must be manufactured at almost fully robotized plant.

I was asked make the system, that could demonstrate for high officals the real work of the plant and its robotized units (autonomous transport robots (automatically guided vehicles), CNC units,...), how they move from one point to another, automatic stores functioning,...). I must say that we (our institute) already had make Personal Computer with graphic display in 1975y and it was produced by our industry.

I resisted. This work seemed to me boring and i didn't like programming, i could programm only in high level languages (ALGOL 60-68, FORTRAN, COBOL, PL1, FORTRAN, PASCAL and languages for robot programming), and i couldn't programm in any Assembler.

At one of the round, when i argued that this job is not for me, i suddenly realized, that this job must be implemented in the language that deals with "objects" of predefined types, communicated via "messages" and sinchronized with "events". But as i knew in the whole world at that moment no such scheme was implemented.

In fact the job was may be the first job for real time graphic "game" in serious deal.

I found the interest to be the first to make it real. And i made it with my friends!
We made the Multytask Real time Operational System. We made it appropriated for ADA and Parallel Pascal languages. When RTOS was created algorithms for our programmes i wrote in ADA. As i know NOW approximately analogous system was made in USA (BNX), but i hope that we were the first, at least we didn't know about this project. Two or three years later our spies got the codes one of the american RTOS. But it couldn't even level with our work. Later on we used it to control AGV (autonomous transport robots) and antropomorphous painting robots.

What i want to say? I want to say that when we can't resist the fate, we may find such thing in our job, that we begin love this job.

At least i am proud of the job, that at first seemed me very unpleasant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind. "Aristotle".
 
Last edited:
  • #33
kingdomof said:
Please for the love of God don't drop out of Biology after only taking Gen Bio. Biology is a vast study and unless you can fully appreciate the fact that Gen Bio allows people the sample the various flavors of Biology and is meant to provide a introduction to the logic and understanding that comes with the science, you will be miserable. What I see in Math and Physics is a very generalized knowledge for undergrad, whereas Biology has more specialization in a certain direction.

As to what a phosphodiester bond is, why is this not covered in your textbook? It's a C-O-P-O-C bond which joins two nucleotides on 5' to 3' parts of the sugar. In most textbooks, this is covered; maybe looking at different materials will pique your interest.

Jices said:
If you understand the phosphodiester bond, it will help pinpoint the relationship between amino acids where you can learn to cut the bonds via some special substances, this is what biologists know best. I don't think you can let down the profs, only they do it on you. Someone will take your place in the lab.

Indeed, I want to also emphasize that people seem to take one bad experience with a general biology course, which is meant to give an overview of the field so you can put the advanced courses in context, and condemn all of biology. And yes, it's not all perfectly orderly like math is, because it studies the real world, as organisms really function. Nobody told them they were supposed to stick to simple little mathematical models.

mrb said:
I may have oversimplified; I'm not quitting Bio just because I don't like this one class. It really just isn't for me; it was silly of me to head in this direction when I've known all along that I just want to do math (in fact I've known this for 15 years at least but for some reason keep screwing around).

I checked the textbook and phosphodiester bonds are explained in Chapter 14. We have just gotten through Chapter 3. But the thing is... I just don't care. I think a lot of things in Biology are interesting and even amazing but I just am not interested in a lot of the details. I really like ancient history. Over the summer I had to write a research paper about the development of ancient Greek temples and I hated every second of it. Some things don't need to be more than a casual interest.

It's fine to realize it's just not your thing. Just don't mischaracterize the subject based on one sampling of a very low level course.
 
  • #34
Moonbear said:
Indeed, I want to also emphasize that people seem to take one bad experience with a general biology course, which is meant to give an overview of the field so you can put the advanced courses in context, and condemn all of biology. And yes, it's not all perfectly orderly like math is, because it studies the real world, as organisms really function. Nobody told them they were supposed to stick to simple little mathematical models.

It's fine to realize it's just not your thing. Just don't mischaracterize the subject based on one sampling of a very low level course.

My issue is with the way biology is taught. You are given a bunch of facts and told to commit them to memory. In my course I am told to remember all 20 amino acids and their structures... what the hell is the point? You are not told how scientists deduced these structures or properties, just here is the way it works - don't forget it.

Apart from physics and math being more rigorous, which is the nature of the subject, you are told how and where results come from and why they work. However, this was not neccessarily true in freshman where they too just want to give an overview. I'm guessing bio is the same.

In any case, I am becoming more tolerable of biology. Its a very complex subject and a lot of detective work is necessary instead of relying on pure binary logic. What sparked my interest is how they use X-rays to determine protein structures. A lot of it however remains boring, ie. numbering carbons...
 
  • #35
What kind of sadistic general biology course forces you to memorize 20 amino acids?

Experimental methods in biology are more vast than any other science and are, in my opinion, more interesting. It's more palatable for the mind to understand different angles of proof from different sources than it is to have a mathematical solution to prove a hypothesis in the real world, because a mathematical solution is not a real world observation and relies on a model which is inherently incapable of doing anything more other than modeling. Whereas a western blot followed by immunohistochemistry can tell you worlds about a certain biological system and what is going on when coupled with prior knowledge. Forgive my possibly unclear explanation.
 
  • #36
I have to admit that math has kind of ruined me as well. I simply cannot stand the lack of rigor that I have seen in my physics and engineering coursework. Unfortunately, for several years I've been in the habit of putting useful results on the "back burner," intending to formalize it later. This causes me to distrust extremely important results, and to become discouraged.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K