Poll: Is Biology A Science?

[Jegsimmons]

Biology; The study of living life forms and how they interact with their ecosystems.

"the study of"

yeah id say its a science.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I always thought it was since it was listed under SCIENCE in our curriculum books/ But also because in biology, I learned about Genetics, and DNA, and those seem to be really inportant to science.

 

[tthor]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png
they are all sciences, its just that each is a little more specific. tho i think the farther down the chain you go, the more science blends with art


EDIT:sweet, when did I hit 2k posts?

 

[LinwoodElrich]

How... would.... this... not... be... science?
How does that make sense?

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Biology is akin to art?
Well, yeah, except you MAKE art and you don't MAKE biol-oh wait.

 

[Biosophilogical]

psychology and sociology

Actually, I'm pretty sure that psychology and sociology can fall under the category of social sciences[footnote]I say they can because they might not always, depending upon the scientific integrity of the experimenter[/footnote]. They are sciences because they follow the scientific method. Think of it like statistical physics; you don't know every single variable, but you can determine, through repeated and controlled experiments, that certain variables have certain effects on others in a causal relationship.

OT: Of course it is. Biology is the scientific study of living organisms (or something close to that). Key word being 'scientific'. If it wasn't sientific, it wouldn't be called biology, it would probably be called something odd ... like Study of Organisms, or something else with lots of syllables.

 

[Coffinshaker]

The way I see it - if you get to wear a lab coat, you're doing science.

darn right brother!

 

[Necator15]

Yes, Biology is one of the natural sciences. I think your girlfriend was massively misinterpreting that comic. That was more a jab at elitism on the part of scientists in a particular field than any statement that Biology wasn't a science.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Biology is akin to art?
Well, yeah, except you MAKE art and you don't MAKE biol-oh wait.

To put it another way, as an Engineer I hold a certain contempt for any none science major (especially business majors) and i like Biologists, so therefor biology is a science

 

[Griffolion]

It's the methodological study of the physical workings of organic matter and living beings. So yes.

Though with that logic it is simply an extension of Chemistry...

 

[Triangulon]

Yes of course it is.

 

[GeorgW]

Interesting to see this thread revived. It all comes down to your definition of science, and I feel that you need a certain level of precision for it to be science. As you said, there are just too many factors at play in ecology and other fields like it, and therefore I don't view it as science. It falls below my border of acceptance so to say. That's not to say that ecology is any less of a field, it's just different in a lot of ways and should have another definition. But that's just how I define it to myself, other people would of course define it differently. I just want to defend my position, cuz I realise I didn't present it so well the first time.

Ok, in the full knowledge that I can't change your opinion, and in the full understanding that you do not view ecology as less of a field for 'not being a science', I would like to suggest an alternative point for dicussion:

In physics, it can be seen that gravity acts and it can be seen that it doesn't in space; however, the exact mechanism by which gravity acts has not been proven rigourously. In other words, there may be a mechanism, which we do not comprehend, that explains the act of gravity but occurs in a completely different way to how we think it does. This hypothesis is currently untestable, and unprooven. Rather imprecise, shall we say.

However, in ecology, if I remove species X from a system, species Y, from the same trophic level, will reach "always" reach carrying capacity, in absence of predatory effects, due to a lack of competition for resources. This is a testable and repeatable hypothesis that we can explain from the metabolic level; without the need for hypothetical particles or anything that cannot be shown visibly or chemically. Does that not sound like a more valid scientific hypothesis than using something that uses a mechanism we cannot detect as an explanation.

I hope that this point has not been obtuse in anyway, I think perhaps your understanding of exactly what ecology is as a field is not as complete as to truely understand the processes that determine how organisms interact. Similar to how I do not have knowledge of chemistry past an A level standard. All I can say is that our opinions are highly biased, if you had an interest in ecology then you would probably think of it as a science. Similarly, if I was a physical chemist, I would probably think of it as a soft science at best.

I hope that I have not pressed this point in such a way as to be offensive.

Oh I don't believe in gravity. We'll get to that.
I see your point as: "We can clearly see that gravity does stuff here and other stuff there, and ecology is better cuz we can see that a species does this, but when we do that, other stuff happen." I really don't see the difference.

I don't really like the current form of maths we use, primarily cuz there's no excuse for not easily being able to divide by 0. But I like that within the definition of maths as it is, that 1+1=2, everything is definite. It's somewhat similar in physics, until you come to quantum stuff and that's where I really dislike the current form of physics, cuz I don't believe in Higg's boson (this is where my quarry with gravity lies). The funny thing is that we invented quantum physics cuz we didn't like the old form, and it's a lot better. It'll never be complete though, that's what's so awesome. All other fields should adopt the same attitude, and will.

The difference is, physics and maths is the way it is cuz we say so without really knowing. Biology and ecology is the way it is cuz we see it to be so without really knowing. That's why I feel the need to differ these fields, if only slightly. I realise the difference is subtle, but it's there, wouldn't you agree? I just like the first one, and that's all I was trying to say.

We have this discussion all the time in school. Half the class is on one side, and half is on the other. I'm on the side that it is not. I feel that a series of observations and guesses based upon them is not science. I'm of course not talking about all of biology as a field, but more about things like ecology and ethology. Biology is science, ecology is not, just making that clear. For exaples, once it was said that all ravens are black. Then one day, a white one was seen, so they corrected it. This is not a scientific method, that is guesswork. Maybe I'm just being ridiculous, but that's the way I feel.

I would just like to point out that the dictionary definition of science is 'The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.' if this doesn't blow your theory as to why certain aspects of biology do not constitute 'science' straight out of the water, then I don't know what does. Biology is, without question, a science.
Also, the word 'science' stems from the Latin, scientia (one of several variations of knowledge). What I'm getting at is, at its root, 'science' can literally be taken as the study of knowledge itself (although admittedly in a less modern sense), and could therefore encompass a much broader range of subjects than just 'biology' 'mathematics', 'physics' or 'genetics'.

See the above. My first post was rushed and, well wrong. I hope this clears it up. I just don't like the definition of the word science, it's too broad, so I use the one explained above.