Working with experimental biologists: providing food for thought
Maths are rigorous, complete, and "correct". By "correct" I mean that we can prove that our statements are true. But when we apply maths to investigate biological systems, we cannot prove anything about these systems - actually, we cannot prove anything in applied science - we can just provide theories and evidence in support of those theories. Science is revisionistic and there is no amount of mathematics that will ever change that. So when we apply mathematics to study biological systems, the goal is never to prove that a theory is true. I see my research in collaboration with biologists as providing 'food for thought', for example: 1. When we collaborate, our discussions offer different points of view and ways of structuring thought and the research project. 2. While we cannot provide 'proof', modeling can offer a new interpretation of biological events. 3. The model can point to new directions to explore or spark new questions. This happens esp...