I'm obsessed w the idea that in 100 years there will be a valid discipline of theoretical biology which you can practice in akin to theoretical vs experimental physics - where it isn't a second-class citizen to experimental work. So interested in what catalyzes it.
-
Show this thread
-
To clarify - there's lots of incredible theoretical work in biology done today, by people I really admire! I just have the (possibly incorrect) impression that it's not *generally* afforded the same stature as theoretical work in physics.
12 replies 2 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @LauraDeming
the path dependence of biology will always mean there is more history in it than physics, imo, what happens is underconstrained but it would be awesome to have a better system for eg estimating the envelope of expectation for viral mutation…
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong
I think there's a version of biology that isn't path dependent (?)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
i guess i just mean i think the history of the world is super dependent on e.g. dna / rna appearing at all at what specific time, oxygen metabolism, even e.g. covid, columbian exchange. biological history depends on some crazy guy named columbus and a monarch giving in to fund
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
