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