Poll: Is Biology A Science?
- Thread starter similar.squirrel
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Totally agree. What makes a subject a science is the methodology involved in the process rather than the actions performed. Biology is a science; a soul crushingly excruciating one, but a science nonetheless.kromify said:
Can you run repeatable and observable experiments to explain phenomena? Can you combine present and past experimental results in larger theories? Yes, biology is a science. Still hate it though, living things are messy and disgusting...
Anyway, the XKCD comic was probably way over her head. The purity asserted in it was something else entirely, something akin to the reverse order of discovery, and on what other fields a branch of science is based upon. For example, us chemists are nothing more than scientists who apply the principles of physics to elements, atoms, molecules, polymers, etc, while the physicists find applications to equations solved centuries ago by mathematicians. A much better example would be quantum mechanics, which wasn't "discovered" until the early 1900s. Only that wasn't true in the slightest. The necessary equations had been solved starting in the 1700s, long before anything was known of the wave/particle nature of tiny things. Again, physics merely found an application for these equations, which us chemists then used in large scale computations for various properties of compounds, which the bio people then get to use for whatever the hell it is they're doing.
That said, sociology is just glorified statistics, and psychology and voodoo are interchangeable terms. (just bitter cuz the liberal arts people get so much money)
Anyway, the XKCD comic was probably way over her head. The purity asserted in it was something else entirely, something akin to the reverse order of discovery, and on what other fields a branch of science is based upon. For example, us chemists are nothing more than scientists who apply the principles of physics to elements, atoms, molecules, polymers, etc, while the physicists find applications to equations solved centuries ago by mathematicians. A much better example would be quantum mechanics, which wasn't "discovered" until the early 1900s. Only that wasn't true in the slightest. The necessary equations had been solved starting in the 1700s, long before anything was known of the wave/particle nature of tiny things. Again, physics merely found an application for these equations, which us chemists then used in large scale computations for various properties of compounds, which the bio people then get to use for whatever the hell it is they're doing.
That said, sociology is just glorified statistics, and psychology and voodoo are interchangeable terms. (just bitter cuz the liberal arts people get so much money)
Yes.
You take observations, construct hypothesises, make predictions, make mathematical models, test predicitons.
Basically you're using the scientfic method to come to rational conclusions about the natural world. Its only been a science recently compared to physics and chemistry. Arguably maths isn't a science because in science you can't ever fully "prove" something since, in theory, new evidence can always come about to disprove a hypothesis.
Things come become excepted and its pretty much be sure that they are true, like evolution, but philosophically speaking they aren't "proved."
I say this as someone studying biochemistry, I'm not trying to undermine science with this talk of "proof" by they way just point out that technically maths isn't one in that respect.
You take observations, construct hypothesises, make predictions, make mathematical models, test predicitons.
Basically you're using the scientfic method to come to rational conclusions about the natural world. Its only been a science recently compared to physics and chemistry. Arguably maths isn't a science because in science you can't ever fully "prove" something since, in theory, new evidence can always come about to disprove a hypothesis.
Things come become excepted and its pretty much be sure that they are true, like evolution, but philosophically speaking they aren't "proved."
I say this as someone studying biochemistry, I'm not trying to undermine science with this talk of "proof" by they way just point out that technically maths isn't one in that respect.
Why is it sad that its a science? Why is a means of understanding the very cells and molecules that make up humans a sad thing?NoseDigger said:
God yes it is a science. I fail to see any reason it WOULDN'T be.
Its a complicated line between science and art. I know alot of people who say everything in exsistance is maths (a science) but then the main differance between art and science is that science deals in facts. Art doesn't have to.
Biology teaches you facts. Like how if you remove oxygen from a room filled with people, those people will sufocate. They teach you that the heart pumps blood around the body and that red blood cells are filled with oxygen (i think?). These are all facts.
I don't like the idea that Art is a science and i really don't like the idea that everything is a math but idk =/
Its a complicated line between science and art. I know alot of people who say everything in exsistance is maths (a science) but then the main differance between art and science is that science deals in facts. Art doesn't have to.
Biology teaches you facts. Like how if you remove oxygen from a room filled with people, those people will sufocate. They teach you that the heart pumps blood around the body and that red blood cells are filled with oxygen (i think?). These are all facts.
I don't like the idea that Art is a science and i really don't like the idea that everything is a math but idk =/
The XKCD guys are rather elitist in what they call science and, big surprise, what they call science is the two fields they studied. I get saying that things like sociology and psychology are soft science, because it's admittedly difficult to produce repeatable results when your subjects can vary greatly depending on location, age, demographic, morals, ethics, tradition, upbringing, sexual affiliation, religion, time of day, and weather. Gravity won't suddenly start acting different because it had an off week and is just really tired.
But biology? Biology is just chemistry with living things, and chemistry is just as hard and predictive as physics. Certain aspects of biology are iffy, but things like genetics and biochemistry are about as hard and repeatable as you can get. Personally, I'd say that mathematics isn't a science so much as it's a tool. Pure mathematics is just an abstraction, like pure logic, it only becomes useful when applied to something, like physics.
But biology? Biology is just chemistry with living things, and chemistry is just as hard and predictive as physics. Certain aspects of biology are iffy, but things like genetics and biochemistry are about as hard and repeatable as you can get. Personally, I'd say that mathematics isn't a science so much as it's a tool. Pure mathematics is just an abstraction, like pure logic, it only becomes useful when applied to something, like physics.
Yes, but is more of an abstraction than physics, maths, etc.
A diluted form of science is still science, though.
A diluted form of science is still science, though.
I'm a third year biology under grad, it is foolish to think it is not a science. Chemistry and biology are equal in difficulty and understanding in my opinion. Mind you I do micro and cellular biology. Ecology is not as math based as some of what I do, but it still describes natural phenomena.
She has an pretty thorough understanding of physics. Most of which goes over my head completely [quarks, hadrons, strange, charmed..It all make equal sense to me. Namely, it doesn't, though I would like it to].thiosk said:
Oddly enough, I find it strange that so much of astronomy and physics has been inferred rather than observed. I don't doubt the veracity of most findings, but it makes me think that, to be a physicist, one must be slightly unhinged >,>.
'Outside of the box' thinking, except the box has been disassembled to it's most basic components and used to make a statue of a giraffe eating toilet paper..
It doesn't study the fundamental laws and objects of the universe, instead it studies how things interact. Biological organisms are made of thousands of molecules which are made of tens or hundreds of particles. Because there are so many of them, the way those particles interact is too complex to be studied directly. Basically, what I'm getting at is that Biology studies the effects of hundreds of fundamental things acting together whereas physics/maths study those things themselves.Piecewise said:
That's also why biological 'laws' have so many hundreds of exceptions, whereas almost all physical laws are absolute.
True that biology is almost the last science in that it relies on the first two of physics and chemistry to exist but it does and it is the science of all natural (not necessarily but mostly) living things..
So yeah its a science, and millions of biologists world wide will agree with the statement that biology is a science.
So yeah its a science, and millions of biologists world wide will agree with the statement that biology is a science.
Of course it's a science. I'm trying to think of other things to say, but I'm pretty awe struck that people don't think biology is a science.
Sorry, OP, but your girlfriend seems to be suffering from a case of pretentious superiority and/or being way too impressionable. Also not realizing what XKCD's point there was.
But on topic, YES, it is a science. And I don't there are many people out there who'd disagree.
But on topic, YES, it is a science. And I don't there are many people out there who'd disagree.