Radio 4 prompted enquiry for 'The Blagger'

[guest7]

I heard one of those dopey statistics on R4 the other day that made me laugh because it seems so palpably untrue.

Some academic said "90% of all we know in neurology has been discovered in the last 15 years".

So come on Andy, does that sound right? and if so then what percentage is down to you and your misuse of lab facilities? :-)

Statistics are funny eh? If you looked at the rise of motorcycle accidents without considering the change in rider profile over the last ten years you'd conclude that motorbikes are getting more unsafe. Mind you, as the years pass, my bikes are getting more unsafe, but I digress.

GC

[guest27]

Currently my bikes are very safe - unless they fall on your foot that is

R

[andy230]

Hmmm.  I dunno.  Can of worms, this one mate.

I mean, yes, the rate at which you can now churn out data is higher than before.  So-called "high throughput" techniques mean that **loads** (no more scientific/ specific than that!) of samples can be analysed in much less time.

(Some) Undergraduate students regularly use techniques which were absolutely novel in the early 80s.  A lot of Molecular biology (DNA) techniques are now so straightforward that most research science companies supply "kits" whereby the researcher can extract DNA, proteins, whatever without a real understanding of what they're doing.

ie. not that much training is necessary to do it.  Thus freeing up other folk to do novel, cutting edge stuff, who can rely on a steady stream of good quality starting material to analyse.

--- But I suppose you don't have to understand the benefits of cross ply to fit a tyre...---

For example, I will routinely do stuff that was *truely* cutting edge 5 years ago, but is now relatively routine, and is done on a commercial basis.  Ok, so it fails a lot, but it works sometimes 

But how do you measure "all we know in neurology "   Is it the rate at which neurological papers are coming out??  It can't possibly be disease treatment, beacause since 1992 (or so), I don't know that clinical treatment has moved on much.

It IS a bit of a daft statistic.  And somewhat dismissive of the massive advances made in the last century.

Look at Ramon y Cajal      http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1906/cajal-bio.html

I suppose at some, so great was *his* contribution, regarding our understanding and visualisation of single nerve fibres, at some point, he could have said (presumably before 1934 when he died) "90% of all we know in neurology has been discovered in the last 15 years".

Its a bit like Carl Fogary famously dismissing the great of the 40, 50s and 60s when he was blathering on about how great he was on the Isle of Man.  Yes, he was truely brilliant, and Yes, much faster than the old duffers, but give him a solid rear end, girders up front, and maybe a hand change, and cobbled roads, King Carl,  and I wonder if he'd still be quicker than them.  Maybe....

Anyway, thats a bit off topic.  Here, I've been at this for ages!! Answer: its a bit of a "stat for radio" I'd reckon.  Tho R4s science coverage is quite good I'd say...  Right-  Back to the lab!

a

[guest7]

Interesting stuff, thanks for your reply.

Yep R4 science stuff is generally interesting and (from what I can gather) very good. 'Material World' is superb.

Cheers
GC

[guest27]

Mmmmm neurology is the science of how the brain works?   Seems to me that the brain is a complex adaptive system and understanding the individual parts does not confer understanding of the emergent whole...  However when I blather on like this to The Boss she hits me and tells me I have no idea what I am talking about - which is fair, I never do.

R

[GB500nz]

Read "In Search of Memory", by Eric Kandel. Wonderful book about memory: his, yours, a worm's. He got a Nobel for his work and deserved it. Calling the brain an adaptive system that doesn't need understanding is like doing the same to the weather. Back to blaming gods for everything?

[guest27]

Mmm not sure if the comment about not understanding it was aimed at me...

Horseness is in the horse not the parts, we can seek to understand the whole and thus how the parts work together, but due to the interactions and complexity etc, there are properties we observe that are not part of any one entity, or we can hack the horse up.  We may learn about the nature of its organs, and we may learn about cleaning blood off carpets, but we will not learn about the horseness. - Simulaly the brain is a part of a larger systme - the body and the self - and thjere is growing evidence to suggest that 'memories' can be held in other parts of the body to the brain, simulaly the difference between supposedly unique brain cells and some of the white blood cells is just a matter of location etc (Rambling now)  Was trained in reductionist science, worked / work in emergent systems thinking, just like the contrast.

R

[andy230]

Calling the brain an adaptive system that doesn't need understanding

I dont think thats quite what was said / meant.  Just that it is greater than the sum of the parts. 

Quite unlike my racer- the individual parts are good.  But put em together and its a dog 

a

ps.  Dont think I go for the memories in other tissues malarky.  But thats just me!  Good debate! 

[Andy M]

Mmm not sure if the comment about not understanding it was aimed at me...

Horseness is in the horse not the parts, we can seek to understand the whole and thus how the parts work together, but due to the interactions and complexity etc, there are properties we observe that are not part of any one entity, or we can hack the horse up.  We may learn about the nature of its organs, and we may learn about cleaning blood off carpets, but we will not learn about the horseness. - Simulaly the brain is a part of a larger systme - the body and the self - and thjere is growing evidence to suggest that 'memories' can be held in other parts of the body to the brain, simulaly the difference between supposedly unique brain cells and some of the white blood cells is just a matter of location etc (Rambling now)  Was trained in reductionist science, worked / work in emergent systems thinking, just like the contrast.

R

All good stuff.

Just to add my 2p's worth, maybe think about electronics. The actual bits are very simple and well understood, just a lot of high/low functions that are forced to work on or off. Put enough together, and not as many as you'd think, and the resulting lump starts to act like it has a pretty complex life. You can make a decent insect like brain out of £30 worth of bits. Quite a few universities like to research this stuff and call it AI just because the software can find a power supply when it's "hungry" and go find another AI to swap data with when it's "horny" and so on. Likewise it's amazing how many people think their trucks brakes are learning just because they use an adaptive loop with more than one input. However, just because you can write a test routine and a cockroach, the simple AI and the truck display similar traits only gets into the what not the why, it's just a sum. When power<X go find power. When power>X go find new data. When new data is less than 10 minutes old have a fag then go to sleep etc! Not at all complex but expandable to cover a whole raft of things that suddenly make it look complicated. The research is useful as it develops ways to write the software using tiny amounts of processing power, but it won't lead to making a horse!

Andy

[mini-thumper]

I wonder if many other MC clubs have this level of intelligent discussion? Much more engaging than the usual "How fast?, How much? What colour/fashion?" bo**ocks. Maybe a perceived inadequacy in one department (ie. mono cylinder) allows for expansion into wider arenas. Maybe!

Excellent, and long may it continue..................................................

BB

[themoudie]

Aye AndyM,

I can follow that bit of logic.

Just wish I could get my wiring to cope with ACCESS query builder! Very frustrating, I know what I want to query but getting the syntax right !!!!!!!!!!*&**%$£!!!{}[[[[[]]]]] I find impossible!

CSE Maths demonstrates my understanding!

As for getting the 'horse' in it! I'd use the analogy that the 'Vital Spark' is missing and you require a weedrop of Dan's craitor!!!! ;-)

Slainge.

Bill