How Physicists Always Get it Wrong

A few months ago, Nature Physics published an article about an eventual overthrow of evolutionary theory. It's seen often enough - and in different fields. Sometimes there is legitimate grounds for strong skepticism, sometimes it's contrarianism masquerading as skepticism and often, as in the aforementioned publication, it's a case of experts speaking outside their expertise (something we do at the Bayblab quite often). In a humourous paper entitled "A Simple Model of the Evolution of Simple Models of Evolution" [free pdf] the authors explain how it can happen, using an explosion of evolutionary models made by physicists as an example:

The question presents itself: why are we being deluged with such models? In the spirit of the field, we present a simple evolutionary model of this process.

1. A physicist runs across or concocts from whole cloth a mathematical model which is simple, neat, and contains a great many variables of the same sort.
   
   
2. The physicists has heard of Darwin (1859), and may even have read Dawkins (1985) or some essays by Gould, but wouldn’t know Fisher (1958), Haldane (1932) and Wright (1986) from the Three Magi, and doesn’t dream that such a subject as mathematical evolutionary biology exists.
   
   
3. The physicist is aware that lots of other physicists are interested in annexing biology as a province of statistical physics.
   
   
4. The physicist interprets his multitude of variables as species or (if slightly more sophisticated) as genotypes, and proclaims that he has found “Darwin’s Equations” (cf. Bak et al. (1994)), or, more modestly, has made an important step towards eventually finding those equations.
   
   
5. His paper is submitted for review to other physicists, who are just as ignorant of biology as he, but see that it’s about equivalent to the other papers on evolution by physicists. They publish it.
   
   
6. The paper is read by other physicists, because at least it’s not another derivation of specific heats on some convoluted lattice under a Hamiltonian named for some Central European worthy now otherwise totally forgotten. Said physicists think this is cutting-edge evolutionary theory.
   
   
7. Some of those physicists will know or discover simple, neat models with lots of variables of the same type.

They continue:

[O]ur model predicts that simple statistical-physical models of evolution will continue to proliferate until either (a) all the available models are exhausted, or (b) they become as common and as boring as any other subject in the statistical physics literature, or (c) physicists learn some actual biology. We are not entirely confident that the third limiting factor will become operational before the others.

So there you have it: this will continue to be a problem until everybody learns more biology.

Of course, as much as we would like to think so, this isn't limited to physicists, even if they aren't as humble as us bio-types. And it's really just an extension of what we often lament in science writing (and other journalism) - poor understanding of the subject and headline grabbing, like the title of this post.

A skeptic's song

Great quotes from Stephen J Gould

I found this great unofficial site for Stephen J Gould which has some great quotes from the evolutionary master:

"Skepticism or debunking often receives the bad rap reserved for activities—like garbage disposal—that absolutely must be done for a safe and sane life, but seem either unglamorous or unworthy of overt celebration. Yet the activity has a noble tradition, from the Greek coinage of ‘skeptic’ (a word meaning ‘thoughtful’) to Carl Sagan's last book, The Demon-Haunted World. […] Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism—and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency. […] Skepticism's bad rap arises from the impression that, however necessary the activity, it can only be regarded as a negative removal of false claims. Not so […]. Proper debunking is done in the interest of an alternate model of explanation, not as a nihilistic exercise. The alternate model is rationality itself, tied to moral decency—the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known."

It also has the famous passage of Karl Popper's "conjectures and refutations" which deals with science as falsification, which I had been hunting for a while...