Talk:Theoretical biology

Category:Theoretical biology

Theoretical biology is surely a wide enough field to enjoy its own category, so I've created it. :-)

Currently it just contains the main page and a page I created about the Bak-Sneppen model of species co-evolution, but I'm sure there must be plenty more pages that would fit the bill.

Best wishes, — WebDrake 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No interdisciplinary field of academic study

Practically every field of study has a theoretical part, which acquire interdisciplinary study... but this doesn't makes such theoretical studies be called interdisciplinary. --Mdd 23:18, 9 january 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Mathematical biology

I'm not sure how mathematical biology is different from theoretical biology, at least in terms of actual research (there is a subtle conceptual difference, I think). Should these two articles be merged? I'd suggesting moving Math bio to be under the title T. bio. Thoughts? --Hansnesse 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical biology is about creating general theories and synthesizing information. Mathematical biology can involve theoretical biology, but it can also be more empirically driven and it does not always have the synthesis of results into unified theories as its goal. In practice, when people use the term theoretical biology, they often refer to things like mathematical modeling. Theoretical biology is more philosophical in nature, it probes deeper at times. Mathematical biology evokes subjects such as population biology or modeling individual cells or larger physiological systems, whereas theoretical biology makes me think of things like Stuart Kauffman's views on self-organization, or Jørgensen's attempts at integrating different theories of how ecosystems work. The material currently covered on the two pages seems to strongly reinforce my intuition of these two subjects being distinct, although they are certainly very closely related. Cazort 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence about obsolete...

Removed the following sentence, as this does not represent reality. Theoretical concepts and modelling becomes more and more important in many fields, including Systems_biology and Computational Neuroscience. This sentence was removed: Over recent years the theoretical biologist has become nearly obsolete, as tests prove the impossibility of accurate results where the environment of the observations is not homogeneous.

Francis Crick

I think the list of theoretical biologists leaves out the most successful theoretical biologist of the last century....Francis Crick, whose work on the structure of DNA, the genetic code, and theoretical work related to the central dogma, and consciousness make him the essential theoretical biologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical biologists

Shouldn't Charles Darwin be on this? We keep talking about the "theory" of evolution. Am I wrong in thinking of evolution as a biological theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.109.53 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I removed John Cowan (football player).[reply]

Should this article exist?

This article cites no sources, and its topic is neither listed in Biology#Branches of Biology nor List of biology disciplines. Further, it consists mostly of a probably-WP:OR list of 'Theoretical biologists' with unclear inclusion criteria. I would therefore suggest redirection to Biology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that the article shouldn't exist, but there is a Journal of Theoretical Biology (Elsevier), and several European universities (Humboldt University Berlin, Vienna University, Utrecht, Free University Amsterdam) have departments or similar sections having "of Theoretical Biology" in their names. So I think you'd have to do a better job of arguing your case. For all I know (and I don't know much about biology) the lack of the topic at List of biology disciplines could be due to a US bias in that list, or more simply because it's incomplete. (And I must say that for me as a mathematician the subject as described in the article has a lot of appeal.) Hans Adler 08:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German article is much more informative. It says the subject came up around 1900. It cites Jakob von Uexküll's 1920 book on theoretical biology as a standard work from the pre-mathematical era of the subject. I would volunteer to translate the article, but that's tricky because the German Wikipedia has different sourcing customs. There are plenty of sources in that case and only one inline citation.

PS: It appears to me that this may just be an approximate synonym for mathematical biology, one that also includes the pre-mathematical phase. So that looks like a good merge target. (Note that DE doesn't have a separate article on mathematical biology, just the one on theoretical biology.) Hans Adler 08:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mathematical biology has 'theoretical biology' bolded in its lead as a synonym, and has 67 references (to this article's none), it would appear to be a slam-dunk for a redirect. If/when anybody wants to claim that this is a separate and notable topic (and can pony up with RSs to both distinguish the two and to demonstrate "significant coverage" for this topic), the question can be revisited. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source at mathematical biology for theoretical biology being a synonym is not what I would consider a reliable source for that kind of information. And here is what seems to be a somewhat reliable source claiming that "theoretical biology" is something other than mathematical biology: "The aim of theoretical biology is to unveil general principles in the vast multitude of biological phenomena. Theoretical biology is the original and comprehensive term, but other names such as systems biology, integrative biology, and bioinformatics are also used, in particular to highlight special applications." [1] Mathematics is not even mentioned, although one of the degrees they are offering is a Diplom in mathematics! It seems to me that everybody is a bit fuzzy about the precise meaning of the terms and the demarcations between them, if there are any; often people talk about "mathematical/theoretical biology". ODP distinguishes between theoretical biology (under biology) and mathematical biology (under mathematics). I think it's best to make a formal merge proposal and hope that an expert comes here with more insight. Hans Adler 11:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, doesn't all science aim to "unveil general principles in the vast multitude of [the studied] phenomena", by finding generalised explanations of specific data? 'Science' that does not attempt this (but simply catalogues the data) would appear to be some sort of Baconian proto-science. Given that there's no sourced material to merge, a merge proposal would appear to be superfluous (but call one if you really think that one is needed). The terms are sufficiently related/overlapping/equivocated-over-as-to-whether-or-not-they're-the-same-thing that a redirect is not inappropriate (if anybody thinks there's a better target, then they're welcome to bring the issue up, or simply be WP:BOLD and see if anybody objects). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See next thread.

This article now has one authoritative reference

Regarding a few of the previous complaints, this article now has a solid reference. It is by Francis Crick and Christof Koch, both of whom are (were in the case of Crick) serious theoretical biologists. Furthermore, in contrast to the claim made by Hrafn, the cited reference does discuss scientific and biological frameworks generally in the section titled "Framework" (center of page one; not sure how this was missed). This section also discusses the importance of evolution in determining how biological frameworks differ from those in physics and chemistry, and they end this section by stating how the exemplary framework of early work on DNA structure is "broadly applicable throughout biology." This is clearly true of the study of evolution itself as the main article now states.

Furthermore, common knowledge of the absence or paucity of mathematics in certain early theoretical efforts are now supported by this reference and nowhere does the framework approach outlined by Crick and Koch mention the need for mathematics. In fact, implicit in their description of framework is substantial uncertainty that might prevent meaningful mathematical formulations. Instead, they propose it is simply "a suggested point of view for an attack on a scientific problem." So, it is clear that theoretical biology and mathematical biology are not the same. Additional support for this important distinction can be found by the absence of mathematics in Darwin's work and the near absence in the theoretical work of George C. Williams and Robert Trivers, who are among the greatest evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, and probably the two greatest living evolutionary theorists. —Preceding Preston Estep comment added by Pwestep (talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source makes no explicit mention of theoretical biology, nor equates theoretical biology with a "framework". All it says is that "A framework is not a detailed hypothesis or set of hypotheses; rather, it is a suggested point of view for an attack on a scientific problem, often suggesting testyable hypotheses."
The source makes no mention whatsoever of natural selection.

So unless somebody is proposing renaming this article 'Biological frameworks', pulling the source in is pure WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two very good reasons Crick and Koch end the section entitled "Framework" by saying "This lesson is broadly applicable throughout biology." One, because it is, and two, so they don't have to list every biological area and problem to which it is applicable. Your fruitless search for the term "theoretical biology" in their paper might be replicated by searching the Old and New Testaments for their concise definitions of the word religion. In other words, their purpose isn't to define theoretical biology explicitly; instead, they are doing theoretical biology and they define what it is by describing the methodological process in generalizable terms. This should also answer point 2 about natural selection. This clearly is not synthesis or new research since Crick and Koch intend the framework approach to be broadly applicable throughout biology, and it is plainly obvious that certain work on evolution by natural selection is just the sort of framework theorizing they describe. In fact, they are simply formally labeling an approach that others have called a "framework." I have used the word "framework" multiple times within two publications, which I will add as references to the main article. My use is in reference to specific evolutionary theoretical work done by George C. Williams, but Crick and Koch's definition is quite compatible with my use, even though I didn't read their definition until after my publications were out.Pwestep (talk • contribs) 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:Synthesis. If Crick and Koch do not explicitly equate their framework approach with "theoretical biology", then you are not permitted to do so -- and regardless should not use obvious WP:WEASEL-wording like "can be described as" to do so. Interpreting C&K's 'intentions' is "interpretation" and requires a WP:SECONDARY source for the interpretation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]