To all the candidates: good luck! Thanks for putting yourselves out there for the site.

@terdon Sorry guys, I was off for a few days, but now I am back and could answer questions (if this is still necessary).

@Chris No idea, I was pinging for theforestecologist :)

Many biologists have misunderstandings about concepts from mathematics/physics/statistics/etc. This leads to good scientific questions being closed, and hampers interactions with people from other sciences. For example some moderators are unfamiliar with how so-called Fermi questions are scientifically addressed, and what's worse they are not open-minded about learning it. Of all the candidates, who can improve (or at least not worsen) the situation?

@root What moderators are you talking about? The election is about diamond mods, these people: biology.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators

@root I don't think being opposed to Fermi questions has anything to do about misunderstanding math/physics/statistics, and I haven't seen many questions here that ask for a Fermi answer. Maybe you could give an example

@terdon My goal here is not to blame people in the past. I want to improve the overall situation via the election.

Usually the way to suggest change in the community is to make your case on Meta; have you done that?

@BryanKrause biology.stackexchange.com/q/53428

@root I don't mean tell me who you're referring to, I'm just wondering why you think this has anything to do with mods.

@root That wasn't closed by mods.

(OK, one of them is a mod today, but they weren't then)

@terdon Because mods can either understand maths, or not so much, and that's a difference

@root But why are mods relevant to this issue?

Although that really wasn't a very good question for the SE model. It's way too broad.

I don't really disagree with closing it; the question is simply not biologically interesting

@root like what?

@Bry

@BryanKrause I don't know what you mean by not biologically interesting. Interest is not objective.

@terdon Mods can set things straight in many ways. By commenting/discussing, by not closing, by reopening. Generally by encouraging scientific precision, by being an example.

@root Not really a mod's job, as such. Apart from leading by example, the rest are things handled by the community.

@terdon Then make it leading by example. Being aware of the problem, etc.

→ 41 messages moved to The Biosphere

@root The Bio-Mods are not closing too much questions - this is mostly done by the community.

Except for very blunt ones.

We touched upon many topics (some irrelevant), but my question is: Of all the candidates, who is aware that parts of the community misunderstand maths/physics/statistics/etc., and that this occasionally leads to problems?

You think this is a real problem of the biology community?

Why don't you write about it in meta?

@Chris I will, but also I want to ask in the context of the elections and candidates.

@root You would need to find some evidence of that. Your question was not closed because of any lack of understanding of any of those topics, so that isn't an example.

Although why you would expect a bunch of biologists to understand physics is beyond me.

That said, as a bioinformatician, someone who works at the intersection of biology, mathematics and computer science, I have been facing this problem for years. It's very hard to find someone who can understand your paper. One referee gets the biology, another gets the math, but very few can get both.

That is an actual problem in the field. Hell, I don't get math, really, that's why I collaborate with mathematicians.

@terdon Please ignore my example. I'll find others some time. Here you also just gave an example (not directly related to SE, but potentially related if the same referees are also SE users).

@root Yes, that's a problem for me, but not for the site since bioinformatics isn't on topic here :)

So yeah, I'm curious which of the candidates are aware of this, have additional knowledge of science (for example like you do as a bioinformatician and colleague of mathematicians), etc.

This site is about biology. So if you need to know physics to answer a question, then the question is off topic. Stats are different and we do have some users with strong statistics backgrounds.

But biologists are notoriously bad at math.

(myself very much included)

I'm still not clear on why you think a mod could help though. Nothing of what you're describing is a mod's job. Even if one of the mods were an expert in all sciences, that wouldn't make any difference to how questions about math would be received on the site.

@terdon Many questions can be at the intersection of several sciences. That's when the "notoriously bad at math" folks can damage the discussion. Some of the mods' privileges (and their example role) can influence the discussion. As Jeff Atwood writes, the mods' goal is "to guide the community with gentle — but firm — intervention".

@root I am not aware of a big problem, but this might be my bias. If so, this needs to be discussed in and with the community, as a lot (I would say most) closing decisions are not done by mods but by the community.

@Chris This is not (or not just) about closing. It's about a general tendency for misunderstandings etc., similarly to like terdon describes his experience when biologists and non-biologists interact.

@root Perhaps, but again, that's not what mods do. If you feel the site's scope is too restrictive, then by all means, go ahead and open a discussion on meta about it. Mods can't do anything about that, only the community can decide scope.

But always keep in mind that this is a site for biology and anything that isn't biology is off topic. That isn't going to change.

@terdon And anything about biology which is currently misunderstood (as you say it) needs to be discussed in meta as this is a community thing.