Recent Posts
- Principles of biological computation: from circadian clock to evolution
- The science and engineering of biological computation: from process to software to DNA-based neural networks
- Elements of biological computation & stochastic thermodynamics of life
- Rationality, the Bayesian mind and their limits
- Web of C-lief: conjectures vs. model assumptions vs. scientific beliefs
- Idealization vs abstraction for mathematical models of evolution
- Allegory of the replication crisis in algorithmic trading
- 668,215 views
Join 2,752 other subscribers
Contributing authors
-
Abel Molina
-
Alexandru Strimbu
-
Alexander Yartsev
-
Eric Bolo
-
David Robert Grimes
-
Forrest Barnum
-
Jill Gallaher
-
Julian Xue
-
Artem Kaznatcheev
-
Keven Poulin
-
Marcel Montrey
-
Matthew Wicker
-
Dan Nichol
-
Philip Gerlee
-
Piotr MigdaĆ
-
Robert Vander Velde
-
Rob Noble
-
Sergio Graziosi
-
Max Hartshorn
-
Thomas Shultz
-
Vincent Cannataro
-
Yunjun Yang
Coarse-graining vs abstraction and building theory without a grounding
April 27, 2019 by Artem Kaznatcheev 6 Comments
Back in September 2017, Sandy Anderson was tweeting about the mathematical oncology revolution. To which Noel Aherne replied with a thorny observation that “we have been curing cancers for decades with radiation without a full understanding of all the mechanisms”.
This lead to a wide-ranging discussion and clarification of what is meant by terms like mechanism. I had meant to blog about these conversations when they were happening, but the post fell through the cracks and into the long to-write list.
This week, to continue celebrating Rockne et al.’s 2019 Mathematical Oncology Roadmap, I want to revisit this thread.
And not just in cancer. Although my starting example will focus on VEGF and cancer.
I want to focus on a particular point that came up in my discussion with Paul Macklin: what is the difference between coarse-graining and abstraction? In the process, I will argue that if we want to build mechanistic models, we should aim not after explaining new unknown effects but rather focus on effects where we already have great predictive power from simple effective models.
Since Paul and I often have useful disagreements on twitter, hopefully writing about it on TheEGG will also prove useful.
Read more of this post
Filed under Commentary, Preliminary Tagged with mathematical oncology, metamodeling, operationalization, philosophy of science