It's worth noting that the author of this article is in the field of Biology, which is one of the last hold-outs for a mathematical revolution. Compared to other STEM fields, biology tends to utilize mathematics the least, especially mor e advanced mathematics. There are of course exceptions, and some great work being done in biological mathematics, but I wonder if the authors viewpoint is changed by this. Anecdotally, I once sat in on a biology lecture(In a math department even) where a visiting lecturer stated his opinion that biology students should not learn differential equations, but should rather just learn to enter them in a computer and follow the phase diagrams. Needless to say, it did not go over well in that crowd.

On the other hand, I (a mathematician) don't know differential equations. It's embarrassing, but not relevant to my work.

One of these days I will get around to learning it.

Repost from 7 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5506093

Thanks for that. I am wondering, I am a pretty regular HN reader, and still I missed that previous post (because I was asleep at the time it was posted, and it vanished too quickly). Any ideas how to fix that problem?

You can use HN search to check if the article you want to submit has already been submitted:

https://www.hnsearch.com

don't sleep so much ;-)

Or, maybe, the HN algorithm should take into account time zones in some way.

I bet some great scientists are good at math - the author probably means "Great Scientist ⫫ Good at Math".

No, he means that these two classes of people are different. That does not mean that their intersection is empty.