While we should always keep a healthy scepticism about new models, we should direct it at the specific quirks and caveats of these models. Whether in finance or science, mathematical models are an increasingly important part of modern life. As a result, useful work can get lumped together with the bad. If we don’t understand something, our instinct is often not to trust it. First, it makes people suspicious of mathematical ideas. Yes the makers of Jurassic Park placed bubbling test tubes next to real molecular biology equipment, but did it really ruin the story?Įrrant test tubes are one thing presenting a subject as complex and impenetrable is far more problematic. Some might argue such scientific stereotypes aren’t a problem. Despite the popular image of Jackson Pollock-esque blackboards, mathematicians generally prefer elegant solutions to messy, confusing ones. Who wouldn’t be surprised to learn that in a room of 23 people, there is a 50% chance two of them share a birthday? When unexpected results like these are pulled apart, however, there is often a neatly formed insight lurking inside. Mathematical results can also be counter-intuitive. Symbols contribute to maths’ reputation for complexity, but it’s more than just a language problem. We also get stories about people who’ve strung together calculations, creating “complex algorithms” that can guide passengers to taxis, help campers put up a tent or point gamblers towards correct results. And if you want to create codes, you’ll need “ complicated maths”. While searching for food, it seems bees (]() too. When researchers recently looked at how plants regulate their starch consumption, newspapers reported that the plants were using “complex maths”. The “inaccurate-but-necessary stereotype” crops up in other media too. They think that without certain (incorrect) stereotypes – like bubbling test tubes in a lab – the audience won’t buy into the story. Yet according to David Kirby, in his book Lab Coats in Hollywood, filmmakers believe that some inaccuracies are necessary. After all, nobody wants to get pulled up on accuracy by a young child.
Directors are aware of this, so generally try to avoid schoolboy errors. Most of us will get annoyed if a film gets its basic facts wrong, for example. When we go to the cinema, we expect certain things of big-screen scientists. Lost in translation? Wallpoper via Wikimedia Commons
0 kommentar(er)
