This unrealistic symmetry and lego like snappiness, plus: in almost every visualization of these tiny tiny structures and processes involving them most of the "environment" is missing!
Think about all the school, high-school and even college visualizations showing the organelles f.e. just hanging there pinned into place. Between them wast areas of ... what?
Now look around you. What do you see? Maybe the furniture of you room resp. office... now wave your hand in front of your eyes (nooo, they are not laughing AT you ;) ... did you feel the interaction of the molecules "in the air" with those of your skin? They are filling the gap between us and the things we are capable to perceive with our eyes...
The "invisible" content of these gaps is interacting with the visible parts. At molecular levels those invisible elements contribute hugely to the non-deterministic, non-lego like snappiness, to the "random walk" way of things working out.
This kind of insight I think should be replacing the "deterministic machinery" view when describing and picturing molecular and micro-biological processes.
Visualizations by Dr. David S. Goodsell present this kind of ideas in a fascinating way.
I don't think the 'missing environment' is as much a big deal. Without getting too reductionist: You have to isolate the components that you're showing otherwise it's just a big mess that's hard to understand. I think the implicit "there's actually a lot of stuff in between there" is not a big deal, much as the implicit "these molecules aren't really colored" is not a big deal in the service of explanatory power.
The reductionist view is not complete, but it's not wrong. Hypersymmetric assembly and molecules that 'know where to go' is wrong, and in a very subtle way that biases perception. The guy who makes the harvard video, in his TED talk, goes on and on about beauty in science. Well yeah, he created that beauty himself. The real system is sloppy and kludgey.... which I suppose could be 'beauty' in its own way, but very different from the way it's presented.
>>You have to isolate the components that you're showing otherwise it's just a big mess that's hard to understand.
That's for sure. No way to depict all of it at once...
>>I think the implicit "there's actually a lot of stuff in between there" is not a big deal, much as the implicit "these molecules aren't really colored" is not a big deal in the service of explanatory power.
I disagree partly here. I imagine (hope! ;) "professionals" do know about the missing and false color "stuff" BUT every picture flushed towards broad public (vs professional publication f.e.) consumption should contain as much context as possible, context "disturbing" the mechanical picture presented of bio-molecular actually all natural reactions today. "knowing where to go" is wrong as you say and it would not "fit" / "work" / "be accepted" / "look believable" the moment the surrounding soup gets visible.
Leaving this kind of context out, i think, propels many misunderstandings about the way science is actually understanding nature.
>> which I suppose could be 'beauty' in its own way, but very different from the way it's presented.
Think about all the school, high-school and even college visualizations showing the organelles f.e. just hanging there pinned into place. Between them wast areas of ... what?
Now look around you. What do you see? Maybe the furniture of you room resp. office... now wave your hand in front of your eyes (nooo, they are not laughing AT you ;) ... did you feel the interaction of the molecules "in the air" with those of your skin? They are filling the gap between us and the things we are capable to perceive with our eyes...
The "invisible" content of these gaps is interacting with the visible parts. At molecular levels those invisible elements contribute hugely to the non-deterministic, non-lego like snappiness, to the "random walk" way of things working out.
This kind of insight I think should be replacing the "deterministic machinery" view when describing and picturing molecular and micro-biological processes.
Visualizations by Dr. David S. Goodsell present this kind of ideas in a fascinating way.
(you can stop waving your hand now ;)