mike868y

He got back to me fairly quick.

mattm

You sure that's all that went on there?

tspek

That's what the warning was for, yeah. Specifically "unsolicited advice".

mattm

Oh. Well in that case, you got me...

mike868y

Don't you just love the smell of fall?

El Diablo Rojo

Happy BD John...go climb a mountain!!!

tspek

I'm never posting in the 41 again. This place is a joke.

El Diablo Rojo

We've all said that.

umd

which mod?

mattm

Just don't get yourself banned.... again.

ridethecliche

The mods in this place have been a little trigger happy and overly sensitive lately.

Whatever...

unterhausen

Unsolicited advice is seldom welcome and is often taken as an insult. Even so, it isn't enough to warrant a warning.

ridethecliche

I just sent an email to my philosophy prof about a potential topic for the final paper.

I want to look at how changing models in molecular bio/biochem or organic chem confer understanding and meaning. Should be a tough paper to write, but I think it's going to be really interesting.

ridethecliche

Some would argue that it's necessary for those who know better to give that advice no matter what. Those who have refused good advice have often regretted it later.

It's an online forum, and people should be welcome to give unsolicited advice. That's how this works.

Enthalpic

Expand.

ridethecliche

>
> I'm interested in how models confer understanding and how these models
> change through time with understanding. Granted, I know only about the
> models that I've learned about which include some in Molecular biology
> and chemistry, but I could look at how these models change when one gets
> into the nitty-gritty aspects of a discipline. I could either look at
> changes in a textbook through time, or talk to a professor and see what
> they think of this.
>
> I could also do the same with organic chemistry since much of the
> learning done is model mechanism based, and when certain elements and
> reactions don't response as the model dictates then knowledge is
> generated as a consequence.




If I was looking at models changing through time I would:



-Look up 2-3 different models maybe 1 decade apart each

-Look at what information the models are conveying about the processes

-How this ties in with belief at the time, and what understanding and
meaning is gleaned from the model.





If I was looking at models at different 'levels' of textbooks I would:



-Look at books ranging from intro bio to biochemistry

-Look at the models and ask what they try to convey

-Determine whether the more advanced models prove the 'lesser' ones wrong.

-Look at what the basic models leave out and why.



One of my fundamental complaints of the sciences is that everything I
learn in the past is 'proven wrong' the next semester. I want to look at
whether anything was actually proved wrong or if this was just a lapse
in my own comprehension.

umd

The speed wobble thread is reaching epic facepalm

Enthalpic

You certainly could do a paper like that. I don't think old models are "proven wrong" it's more like explained differently.

For chem you could follow the progress:
bohr and lewis
arrow pushing and pretty drawings, orbital hybridization
molecular orbital theory.
computation chem / atomic orbital overlap.
quantum chem / dice

I vastly prefer fancy 3D drawings over long text files containing atomic coordinates and I don't care that there is no such thing as an sp2 carbon (atomic overlap/Z*/blah).

Once you can reasonably predict reactivity, what value does the new model add?

ridethecliche

Dude!

Thanks for the help enthalpic!

I was thinking of looking at mechanisms in orgo or processes in molecular bio but looking at something on the more fundamental level would be great as well.

As Kuhn would have said, the new models are often incommensurable with the old. They make absolutely no sense in a new 'paradigm'.

botto 

sounds like some lame ass moderation.

echappist

rtc, don't forget the anecdote of how kekulé came up with the structure of benzene by imagining a snake biting its tail. also, don't forget about resonance and how even it is inadequate, we end up using it over and over anyways.

as for mechanisms, you can approach it another way. back in the old days, the only types of pericyclic reactions were the ones involving organic compounds. they behaved according to woodward-hoffman, so on so forth. in the newer model, you achieve the same transformation, but this time, you do it with metals and end up bypassing woodward-hoffman (both a blessing and a curse).

enthalpic, as your name suggests, are you a physical chemist?

thegunner

enthalpy != physical chemistry jim...

although statistical mechanics has plagued me all year, i fall under materials science.

botto 

just found out that my brother-in-law bought an entry level trek and is training for a tri.

umd

Which of those is worse?

botto 

i'm just happy that he's found a healthy way to use the free time he picked up recently, since receiving a pink slip.

i've been sending him some riding tips, and he's training at a tri-clinic, so he should be OK.