[HN Gopher] Can a biologist fix a radio? Or, what I learned whil...
___________________________________________________________________
Can a biologist fix a radio? Or, what I learned while studying
apoptosis (2002)
Author : gumby
Score : 34 points
Date : 2022-06-10 18:32 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cell.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cell.com)
| geocrasher wrote:
| As somebody who understands radios (Amateur radio is a hobby, and
| I've scratch built receivers) I had to stop reading. It's a
| fascinating, but somewhat frustrating read. I do think the
| overall approach is really interesting though and aptly describes
| the overlap in knowledge that often happens in otherwise
| disparate disciplines.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| A classic.
|
| its spiritual sequel: "Can a neuroscientist understand a
| microprocessor?"
| https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jo...
| mjfl wrote:
| I'm a trained physicist (undergrad) in biology (phd). I've
| always wanted to give a retort "could a physicist understand a
| microprocessor?". the answer is no, no they couldn't, unless
| they were trained in computer science. The abstraction of
| 'state evolving in time according to analytical equation'
| really breaks down when looking at computational systems, such
| as a microprocessor, as well as a biological cell.
| cleansingfire wrote:
| This is an interesting point, and I hope it is actionable. Of
| course we need to understand the biological components and
| systems in detail.
|
| Unfortunately biology varies wildly between individuals, while
| the radio is constructed to a specific design, from parts
| standardized to three significant figures or so. A wiring diagram
| for a radio is sufficient, but cells are influenced by a very
| dynamic environment. We won't diagram my gut biome to that level
| of detail, yet it influences My biology.
| rwj wrote:
| Actually, lots of circuits can be built with components
| specified to within 20%, perhaps with some key components
| specified more tightly. Good designs are robust against
| component variation.
| flobosg wrote:
| (2002)
| Barrera wrote:
| > Yet, we know with near certainty that an engineer, or even a
| trained repairman could fix the radio. What makes the differ-
| ence? I think it is the languages that these two groups use
| (Figure 3). Biologists summarize their results with the help of
| all- too-well recognizable diagrams, in which a favorite protein
| is placed in the middle and connected to everything else with
| two- way arrows. Even if a diagram makes overall sense (Figure
| 3A), it is usually useless for a quantitative analysis, which
| limits its predictive or investigative value to a very narrow
| range. The lan- guage used by biologists for verbal
| communications is not bet- ter and is not unlike that used by
| stock market analysts. Both are vague (e.g., "a balance between
| pro- and antiapoptotic Bcl-2 proteins appears to control the cell
| viability, and seems to correlate in the long term with the
| ability to form tumors") and avoid clear predictions.
|
| This thought-provoking essay nevertheless makes an apples-and-
| oranges comparison.
|
| Let's try another experiment. Present a radio repair technician
| with car (ICE) that cranks but won't start. Give the technician,
| who has zero previous experience, no documentation or training
| and just watch what happens.
|
| I'm going to guess that the technician will follow something that
| looks a lot like the approach used by the biologists in the
| essay. Disassembly. Manipulation of components in isolation.
| Hypothesis of function. Hypothesis validation. Rinse and repeat.
|
| The reason the comparison doesn't work is not some variation of
| vitalism (the author brings up as one objection). The reason the
| radio technician can solve one problem (broken radio) and not the
| other (cranking no start) is not language or vitalism or anything
| else.
|
| It's the simple fact that when faced with a broken radio, the
| technician uses a model that works. It reflects reality and
| stands up to the harshest scrutiny. The technician doesn't get
| that model through induction, it's handed down by those who
| created the system. And to be fair, the manufacturer helps by
| building its product to code, rather than some hazy spectrum of
| possible codes.
|
| The author tries to make a case for "formal" approaches by which
| it seems like he's talking about mathematical approaches. But I
| think this misses the point.
|
| Trying to understand a defect in an alien system poses a
| conundrum: science teaches us to break the system down into parts
| or "systems", but there are many ways to do that. Even if we hit
| on the right fracture points we easily lose the connections that
| made the whole work.
| [deleted]
| nereye wrote:
| Some previous posts:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30120457 76 points|breck|4
| months ago|18 comments
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=624695 22 points|Maro|13
| years ago|4 comments
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-11 23:00 UTC)