IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Experimentation vs. Theory in Soft/Wetware

Hannah Dvorak DvorakH at starbase1.caltech.edu
Thu Jul 6 20:11:13 EST 1995


In article <khurley.805063392 at quapaw.astate.edu>,
khurley at quapaw.astate.edu (Kevin E. Hurley) wrote:

[snip]

>  True, the theory that soft following wet experiments as a basis of
> validation for the experiments will gain support.

(Can anyone out there help me parse the above sentence?  I can't figure it
out...)

> I tend to believe that
> much work in soft experiments is yet to arrive. Neural networking is on
> the rise. See for yourselves. Download GENESIS 2.0 in mid JULY (newest
> release) and try it for yourselves. After some painless compiling, many
> scripts are available that will model adequately many wet procedures and
> provide data local to the same machine run on. 

The results of a simulation are hardly the same as data gathered from an
actual (wet) experiment.  At best, a simulation might reveal the
possibility of a phenomenon that you can then go look for in the real
system.

> This is a giant step from
> mechanically recording scores/crunching numbers and producing plotable
> data by hand.

Most neurophysiology data from wet experiments are collected, analyzed,
and displayed with the help of computers (generally Macs or PCs in my
experience).  This is also a giant step from doing it all mechanically or
by hand.

-- 
Hannah Dvorak                           |
DvorakH at starbase1.caltech.edu           |
Division of Biology 156-29              | Ceci n'est pas un .sig.
California Institute of Technology      |
Pasadena, CA 91125                      |



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net