More on the “math” in mathematical modeling

Posted by Tara C. Smith on March 26, 2006
(2)
More »

Over at Good math, bad math, Mark has a bit more on mathematical modeling. Before anyone screams “witch hunt,” please note:

I’ll leave the science debate over at Aetiology, where it belongs. But there’s definitely a mathematical aspect to this. Professor Culshaw lends her authority as a mathematician to the HIV denialist folks. Does her math support what she’s saying?

Alas, no.

Professor Culshaw is not a bad mathematician – quite the opposite. What I can read of her publications shows very solid mathematical work, done extremely well.

The problem is that when she tries to apply the mathematics to the science of epidemiology, she fails miserably, and the reason why is mathematical.

Elaboration at the link.

(2)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Chris Noble
    March 27, 2006

    Dr Culshaw makes herself slightly more clear here.

    Why I Quit HIV: The Aftermath

    To clarify an issue that has caused some confusion, it was not the mathematical models themselves that caused me to doubt HIV, but rather the scientific literature on which the models are based.

    The problem isn’t her mathematics it’s her comments on epidemiology, molecular biology. antibody tests etc.

  2. #2 Reed A. Cartwright
    March 27, 2006

    Culshaw is a reason why I am a biologist first and a theoretician second.