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.
More like this
The ‘Nifty Fifty (times 4)’, a program of Science Spark, presented by InfoComm International, are a group of 200 noted science and engineering professionals who will fan out across the Wa
I have to admit I'm somewhat surprised (even if Orac isn't).
When I wrote my post last week about the existence of mathematical objects, I had not yet noticed that Massimo Pigliucci was writing about s
Three for the price of one in this week's Friday Bookshelf! Which maybe makes up a little for the complete lack of a Friday Bookshelf last week.
Dr Culshaw makes herself slightly more clear here.
Why I Quit HIV: The Aftermath
The problem isn't her mathematics it's her comments on epidemiology, molecular biology. antibody tests etc.
Culshaw is a reason why I am a biologist first and a theoretician second.