How a 2,500-Year-Old Math Proof Can Help Determine When a Patient Improves
Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the new that we forget the old. Most of us are inclined to trust that new ways are iteratively better, but useful things can sometimes get lost amid the speed of modern advancements. Do you remember the early Amstrad word processors, with their flickering green screens and easy templates for letters and articles? On occasion, I would have eagerly swapped my 1990s talking Microsoft paperclip for that good old green screen. Well, maybe that’s nostalgia talking. But how about the way we used to learn math in school, through long division and multiplication, as opposed to the current “chunking” or “grinding” craze? Or the quality of the CD compared with the average modern MP3 file?
Moving on is fine, but notwithstanding my “I love tech” mug, sometimes I question whether some of the new ways really are better than the old. The hazard is that we may be so keen to evolve and accept the new that we occasionally forget the things we got right before.
This can happen in academic research too. In medicine and epidemiology things move on quickly. Quicker processors mean new methods — Big Data, computational epigenetics, —> Read More Here