Mathematics has ruined science for me

[Howers]

If anyone remembers, I switched from mathematical physics to business as well as some biology (to keep medical sciences open). I was doing well in the former, but it was the career prospects that promted the switch. Now that I'm here, I'm extremely bored...

Business is very slow and uninteresting. They try to make it scientific and I laugh at their attempt to make it come off as a serious study. In fact, I was laughing through an entire lecture and got kicked out (this was a microeconomics course) - and I wasn't even embarassed.

Biology is just as bad. All this crap about proteins and cells isn't interesting nor convincing. Mainly because no one shows me where the results are derived. They are just pasted there on a diagram and I have to remember them. The fact that the lecturer tells us many of the results are undergoing change isn't all that appealing either.

I've done chemistry before so I'm surprised it is somewhat boring too. Its not how I remembered it when I did orgo+analytical back in the day. Its like playing with legos and electrostatics(minus the math). The arguments are extremely hand waving and anything rigorous is often referred to in "more advanced texts".

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.

(advise to scientists: never enrol in pure math. it will get you accustomed to precision and rigor no science will ever reproduce)

 

[loonychune]

I did a year in chemistry and thought it was all a bit ad hoc. Not enough maths in it! I've had some experience of pure maths (real analysis mainly) and find it interesting but realized now I don't have the time to learn it all in such depth. Straight physics, then, turns out to be a good compromise...

I'm not sure that you're going to get rid of the withdrawals if you continue to take your biology course, not after exposure to something so lovely and rigorous and a priori!

Course, I would say that, but unless you find some particular discipline which interests you (i'd have settled down in physical chemistry had I not switched courses) it's going to be tough.

 

[descendency]

Google "Michael Faraday".

He hated mathematics, yet was an excellent researcher.

I'm a pure mathematics student. I hate science. When people ask me what kind of engineer I am, I simply laugh and say "I'm not; I'm a mathematician."

I am curious why you think that career options for a BS in Physics (math, csc, and other major sciences) are not what you want. That might be helpful to know.

 

[Paulo Serrano]

What does a mathematician do?

 

[G01]

In all seriousness, I think you should reconsider a degree in Physics, with a focus on experiment or engineering physics.

While not as rigorous as pure math,at least that's what my math buddies tell me, a career in experimental/ engineering physics may be what your looking for. It is still very mathematical science, even in experimental areas. And if you go into the right fields, it has good job prospects.

 

[thewhills]

How about Biophysics?
I seems like it would add more math to your interest of biology.

 

[Howers]

I never said I hated math. I said it ruined science for me because I have become acustomed to pure logic that no other course seems to reproduce. So biophysics and exerimental physics is out of the question, unless there is a career out of it.

The reason I left physics is because I have become humbled by some of the geniuses that go here, and I stand absolutely no chance in competing with them. The fact that the job market for physical scientists is tight only makes matters worse. Other than that I love math and physics. Its just that everything bores me... so I am wondering if this will fade with time. Or should I look into more mathematical careers instead of business/biology. Math is addictive, and the terse textbooks intended it that way!

 

[vociferous]

If you like pure logic, I might recommend philosophy, at least, if you have a trust fund (or your wife does).

 

[Howers]

Yes, I've enjoyed philosphical courses. Unfortunately, they don't solve the career problems I mentioned :)

And I'm too young to be married hehe.

 

[atyy]

The arguments are extremely hand waving and anything rigorous is often referred to in "more advanced texts".

All the best science is handwaving. Isn't it nice to understand a result intuitively (unless the mystery is of the quality of Euler or Ramanujan's visionary formulas)? Actually, having an intuitive understanding is necessary for making good approximations, which is the most important thing in science, unless you believe the physics myth that all of chemistry can be derived from quantum mechanics.

The most important bit of mathematics is statistics. I believe that Student's t-test is every bit, and perhaps even more important than Einstein's General Relativity. The latter is simply a good approximation in some domain, the t-test is about the scientific method itself.

 

[Integral]

Google "Michael Faraday".

He hated mathematics, yet was an excellent researcher.

I'm a pure mathematics student. I hate science. When people ask me what kind of engineer I am, I simply laugh and say "I'm not; I'm a mathematician."

I am curious why you think that career options for a BS in Physics (math, csc, and other major sciences) are not what you want. That might be helpful to know.

I have news for you this is not 1808. The past 200yrs have changed the face of physics a lot. What you needed then is MUCH different from what you need NOW.

 

[alligatorman]

I never said I hated math. I said it ruined science for me because I have become acustomed to pure logic that no other course seems to reproduce. So biophysics and exerimental physics is out of the question, unless there is a career out of it.

The reason I left physics is because I have become humbled by some of the geniuses that go here, and I stand absolutely no chance in competing with them. The fact that the job market for physical scientists is tight only makes matters worse. Other than that I love math and physics. Its just that everything bores me... so I am wondering if this will fade with time. Or should I look into more mathematical careers instead of business/biology. Math is addictive, and the terse textbooks intended it that way!

Seems like the logical choice if you're not enjoying bio/business and do enjoy math. Don't force yourself into liking something you don't like.

 

[vociferous]

Yes, I've enjoyed philosphical courses. Unfortunately, they don't solve the career problems I mentioned :)

And I'm too young to be married hehe.

At least with math, there are a lot of employers looking to hire mathematicians. Other than college and university faculty, I do not think I have seen a want-ad for a philosopher.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

Im facing a similar situation in engineering. After 3 semesters of EE, I'm in my last math course (Applied Math 3), and its not pure math that we're studying. Its now I think that I should have gone for Math rather than engineering.

On the plus side, I am still not sure if I want to go for an MS in EE or an MBA, but if I go for an MBA, the course should seem a lot easier...

 

[proton]

At least with math, there are a lot of employers looking to hire mathematicians.

for pure math? really?

 

[vociferous]

for pure math? really?

There are a significant number of jobs in the private sector where employers are specifically seeking mathematicians, at least compared to employers specifically seeking philosophers, yes. It is kind of like physics or chemistry jobs. They exist in the private sector, although they are not quite as well paid as engineering jobs, which there are a lot more of.

Mathematicians also have the lowest starting salary compared to engineers and graduates with bachlor's in quantitative science (I believe that Computer Science was the most highly-paid undergradate degree in the sciences).

If you look here (http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/salaries.shtml ), the information is somewhat old, but you can see that mathematicians are probably one of the lowest paid people in the private sector based on the difficulty of the degree (at least, in my opinion, I think a math degree is about on par with chemistry, physics, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering)

It also shows that you are better off (salary wise) as an engineer than a scientist and that you can make almost as much money with a social science or liberal arts degree as with a math degree.

 

[GCT]

If anyone remembers, I switched from mathematical physics to business as well as some biology (to keep medical sciences open). I was doing well in the former, but it was the career prospects that promted the switch. Now that I'm here, I'm extremely bored...

Business is very slow and uninteresting. They try to make it scientific and I laugh at their attempt to make it come off as a serious study. In fact, I was laughing through an entire lecture and got kicked out (this was a microeconomics course) - and I wasn't even embarassed.

Biology is just as bad. All this crap about proteins and cells isn't interesting nor convincing. Mainly because no one shows me where the results are derived. They are just pasted there on a diagram and I have to remember them. The fact that the lecturer tells us many of the results are undergoing change isn't all that appealing either.

I've done chemistry before so I'm surprised it is somewhat boring too. Its not how I remembered it when I did orgo+analytical back in the day. Its like playing with legos and electrostatics(minus the math). The arguments are extremely hand waving and anything rigorous is often referred to in "more advanced texts".

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.

(advise to scientists: never enrol in pure math. it will get you accustomed to precision and rigor no science will ever reproduce)

I always believed that I would be able to understand Physical Chemistry and therefore have a much better insight into Chemistry if I was more proficient at the maths. All of those Eigenfunctions and quantum math - in reference to Schrodinger's book - was beyond me.

Mathematics defines reality ... science is a part of this reality. Both aren't separate realms as you put it. However as Integral had put it , the science of yesteryear is not the same as the " science " of today.

 

[mrb]

FWIW, I'm going through a similar experience. I thought it might be a good idea to go into Bioinformatics or Biomathematics, primarily because I thought those would be better careers but still having opportunities to solve interesting mathematical problems.

So I'm taking General Biology I this semester, and I'm working in a Bioinformatics research lab.

I absolutely cannot stand the class. In math, you need to remember a relatively few key "facts" (definitions, axioms, whatever), but know them extremely well (know their consequences, theorems, etc). In this class, you need to remember an absolutely insane overwhelming amount of facts, but you don't really know much at all about them. You may not even know anything beyond the words. For instance I now know that a strand of DNA is held together by phosphodiester bonds. But what exactly a phosphodiester bond might be, I have no idea. So have I really learned anything at all? No. I just know the name of something.

I will probably be withdrawing from the course in the next few days. It's just a distraction from what I really want to do. I hate to let down the prof in the research lab, but this is not for me.

 

[kingdomof]

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]

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.

 

[mrb]

Please for the love of God don't drop out of Biology after only taking Gen Bio.
...
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.

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.

 

[George Jones]

(advise to scientists: never enrol in pure math. it will get you accustomed to precision and rigor no science will ever reproduce)

I took quite a few courses in pure mathematics, including three graduate courses in pure mathematics, and they didn't ruin science for me. Quite the contrary.

 

[Tac-Tics]

(advise to scientists: never enrol in pure math. it will get you accustomed to precision and rigor no science will ever reproduce)

I took quite a few courses in pure mathematics, including three graduate courses in pure mathematics, and they didn't ruin science for me. Quite the contrary.

I know exactly what the OP is talking about. Even in my high school calculus class, I got yelled at for inventing my own notation to try and make sense out of the nonsense calculus throws at you.

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.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Well, math always has the ultimate answer of "Because I said so at the start." Why are there infinitely many primes? Because of axioms and definitions. Of course you won't be able to answer a physics or chemistry problem in such a way.

 

[George Jones]

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.

I think this view is too simplistic. See

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1008436#post1008436.

 

[Nick M]

I enjoy mathematics when I see it's real-world applications. I suppose that's why I'm interested in engineering rather than pure mathematics. We did some proofs in Linear Algebra, and I found them to be interesting in a crossword puzzle sort of way - but it was nothing compared to how Markov Chains, Steady State Vectors, or Kirchhoff's Law captured my interest.

I think of math as more of a tool. When I can use it to accurately model and predict an outcome I get that nice warm and fuzzy feeling. Other than that it is fine in a casual sense, but I get bored when it becomes completely abstract or deeply involved with proving itself. Not to knock pure math... I'm glad some people are probing the limits and pushing the bar higher.

 

[JasonJo]

I don't think you should be surprised that business is not a science, look at Wall Street right now. It's clearly an educated guessing game.

Biology again is not going to be anything like mathematics.

You shouldn't be shocked that these two academic fields are very different from mathematics.

 

[Tac-Tics]

I think this view is too simplistic.

It's simple, but is there no truth to it?

For a mathematician, it's often good enough to know that something *can* be done. When working out the proof, you don't usually care how something is done. Just as long as it can be done at all, that's good enough. You need the proof, not the method.

Physicists are on the opposite side. You just need the right answer, and are satisfied with rounding off an insignificant terms or discounting small inconsistencies. As long as you're reasonably certain those issues can be resolved, you don't care about the rigorous details. You need the method, not the proof.

Of course, you can wear whatever hat you want. Theoretical physicists are certainly out there, watching out for places your series doesn't converge or where you solved for x by taking the square root of both sides. Math and science are, of course, two sides of the same coin.

 

[JasonJo]

I agree with George Jones. Just because physicists don't necessarily do proofs does not mean that they do not have solid reasoning. Einstein's thought experiments are really a great example of this. There are actually no ugly calculations, just algebra, but the physical insight is astounding.

I think it's almost insulting to boil a physicist down to checking whether certain series converge. A physicists intuition is probably as strong as a mathematician's rigor. And someone who has both qualities is ideal.

Again, wrong about mathematician's just caring about proofs. Not every proof is the same. There is a famous theorem in Differential Geometry called the Cheeger-Gromoll Soul Theorem. Well they proved it a while back, at least 15 years ago. So the result was a well established result. A little known geometer named Gregori Perelman came along and offered a very nice proof using other methods. Similarly, Edward Witten offered a different flavored approach to the Positive Mass Theorem.

You should know all kinds of ways to prove things as they offer different insights. How many ways can you look at a problem? How many ways are there to attack it?

I think it is a farce to try to classify how physicists and mathematicians think. Some mathematicians rely on their intuition more, others are hounds for rigor (Weirstrass I think is a famous example of this). Some physicists aren't as rigorous as other in their field. People attack things differently. Some people like to conjecture and push the field forward, but at the same time, someone needs to put the new puzzle together and establish all the results.

Mathematician's conjecture all the time. Poincare conjecture, Thurston's Geometrization Conjecture, Goldbach Conjecture, among many others.

 

[Tac-Tics]

I'm not trying to dismiss anyone of credit. I'm just trying to justify the fact that I still can't multiply pairs of numbers greater than 7 with 100% accuracy ;-)

 

[descendency]

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. . .

 

[Minich]

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".

 

[Moonbear]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Howers]

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...

 

[kingdomof]

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.