"The logic of the term is at the heart of the dispute. It’s too often used as shorthand to mean ‘linked to’ or ‘important for’, the authors say. And this sloppy use, they argue, can lead scientists in the wrong direction, especially in genetics.
If a gene is necessary and sufficient for something (as often claimed), strict logic demands that that gene alone can do the job. For example, the gene eyeless is certainly necessary for a retina to develop. But it is not sufficient — if it were, then logic would demand that ‘if eyeless exists, then a retina will develop’. This is false; other genes and factors are needed as well. Yet eyeless is often described as being necessary and sufficient for retinal development."
This is so validating, I have noticed the use of this term and been skeptical but assumed that I was missing something. I would go back over the definition of sufficient, try to twist it to match what the authors were saying... It just seemed impossible that someone would use the phrase wrong.
FB: "The duo argues that its objection to such incorrect use is more than pedantry. The combination of necessary and sufficient is excessively strict, and its widespread use has meant, for example, that some ‘command’ neurons have failed to be identified as such because they don’t satisfy the required criteria. (The agreed definition of a command neuron is one that is necessary and sufficient to initiate a behaviour.)"
No comments:
Post a Comment