Poll: Is Biology A Science?

[Skoosh]

Well everything compared to physics seems a little fluffy. I'm a physics major, and obviously it is the best science, but I wouldn't say only, haha. Biologists are still experimenting and gathering empirical evidence to make predictions about and explain the world around them. Sounds like science to me.

Psychology is fuzzy though. There are psychology scientists, neuroscience and such, but there's also a lot of pseudo-scientific jerks in the field. The softer the science, the more fakes you get and the harder it is to tell them apart from the real scientists. Psychology today makes me think a lot of alchemy of yesterday evolving into chemistry. It's still working with a lot of old, non-scientific terminology while being scientific now.

If she doesn't think biology is science, how does she view medicine? Is that not scientific advancement? Evolution is art, not science?

 

[Atticus89]

Sociology, Economics, Business, and Psychology (to an extent) are called the social sciences. They're different from Biology, Chemistry, and Physics (natural sciences) on the basis that the social sciences deal with human society and how it operates whereas the natural sciences deal with how life, the universe, and everything operates.

Ack ... I was a forex retail trader and even I don't consider economics a science.

It's an art if nothing else.

Economics is a subject that aims to analyze how goods are produced, distributed, and consumed. It's a study of how economic systems work, how it effects various aspects of society, and uses empirical data to create theories, hypothetical ideas, and processes (e.g. the idea of supply and demand).

I'm no economist nor an economy student so I can't give a better example of how economics is a social science.

I would, however, like to know how you see it as an art. I don't have the hands-on experience in the field like you do so you have me at a disadvantage.

 

[alandavidson]

YES!

 

[alandavidson]

The systematic study of any phenomena, to me, is a science. ...... it seems inherently ridiculous to discredit an entire branch of science because it uses a different set of vocabulary.

You said it best OP. You should dump your girlfriend. Now.

Agreed.

 

[Togs]

its a science, its not as "hard" a science as maths but it follows the scientific method.

And its not, in anyway shape or form a art- thats quitely frankly one the dumbest things ive heard in awhile

EDIT=Not sure if the stance described in the OP is one of intellectual snobbery or plain old arrogance

 

[Thedutchjelle]

I'm studying Biology at the University of Amsterdam.

Guess what my answer is going to be?



Biology is a very real science. It's about life, and organisms, just as physics is about the natural laws, or chemistry about chemical reactions.

 

[AWAR]

Your girlfriend should really consider her stand on science, maybe start studying some science history or something.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Discaimer: I think it is.

Anyway. My girlfriend takes the XKCD stance, whereby she claims that mathematics and physics are the only 'true' sciences, and that all aspects of biology are more akin to an art.

Yeah, this isn't really a debate. The creator of XKDC is a jerk of a physicist/mathematician and has absolutely no professional standpoint to dictate what is or is not a science.

Biology is quantifiable and predictable. Ergo it is a science. Art is an EXPRESSION. No one is expressing themselves when they stick a blood sample into a machine to see if you carry the gene for Cystic Fibrosis. Doctors certainly aren't expressing themselves when they examine a patient and write them a prescription. At least, they had better not be.

I think some people get confused because of people who are "gifted" at a science. But, then, there are more people gifted at math than at biology, so that argument backfires by making math the "art" and biology the "science".

Anyway, your girlfriend, who I am sure is a lovely person, is completely wrong. So is XKCD creator what's-his-name math guy. There is no debate - they are wrong and need to be properly mocked for it.

 

[bliebblob]

Oh no she didn't.

<-3rd year bachelor in biology here, buckle up.

For convenience i broke it up into 3 mayor questions.

Question nr.1: what is a science?
The most fair and commonly accepted definition of a science is that it has to consist of statements that can be tested and falsified. If they are tested and falsified they are no longer a science.
In ancient Rome the idea of a flat earth was a legit science, modern day flat earth theories are not because the hypothesis of a flat earth has since been falsified.
Creationism is in a grey area because it consist of both unfalsifiable hypotheses and falsibiable ones that have been falsified centuries ago.
Biology is by this definition a 100% legit science.
Depending on what your view on art is biology may be an art as wel i guess, hell i've worked with biologists who sure thought they were skillful artists, but its definantly a science.

Question nr.2: is life a purely physical phenomenon?
3 major hypotheses exist(ed) about this:
1) fysicalism: living creatures are 100% fysical matter because when you break them down into their smallest parts it's just atoms, elektrons, and so on and nothing else.

2) vitalism: beside their physical form, living creatures also have an "elan vital" (a soul if you will) that brings the dead matter to life. Vitalists claim it HAS to exist because living creatures work towards goals, unlike say a rock. Vitalism was big about 200 years ago when a lot could simply not be explained without bringing in some kind of soul.

3) Descartes' dualism: pretty much the same as fysicalism but claims only humans have a soul. This idea made him pretty popular in his days because it meant you didnt have to feel bad for hurting creatures besides humans. Sure a dog would howl if you kicked it but it didn't mean anything, that's something it just does kinda like a door that creaks. From here it shouldn't be hard to see how this idea could easily be extended to humans of say, a different social status or a different race... Yeah you can see where this is going.

So who takes home the gold? Wel both vitalism and dualism bite the dust because by now we know that living creatures don't consciously work towards goals, it's just what evolution "taught" them. Also, a lot of things that couldnt be explained without use of an elan vital have been explained far more coherently by now. And even if we still haven't that doesn't mean we never will. Finally, vitalists haven't made any progess to figuring out what exactly an elan vital is in 200 years.
Disclaimer: all this only applies to "elan vitals" or "souls" as a scientific phenomenon, souls in the context of religion is an entirely different story.

Question nr.3: So living creatures are 100% physical, does that make biology a form of physics?
Believe it or not, yes it is. *gasp* BUT only in a perfect universe.You see in the end wer' all studying the same world here. The different sciences are just an arbitrary division based on what approach is preferred. Since it's the same world they wil come to the same conclusion. Example: when presented with the question "How did sexes come to be and why?" a biologist will try to explain it as a consequence of evolution while a physicist may try to use some sort of calculation. If both sciences have reached some sort of perfect form they WILL both come up with the same answer. However this doesn't work in this imperfect reality. You probably realize a question like the one above can't be solved by calculations, not even by double integrals. Therefore biology has a "right" to exist independently from physics. Will science ever reach such a perfect form? Who knows but it sure hasen't yet. All this goes for ALL sciences by the way, claiming biology is a form of physics is just as valid as claiming physics are a form of biology or that math is a form of geology.

Despite all this physicists LOVE to claim biology isn't much of a science because "it only describes things as they are, it doesn't form any rules of cause to consequence."
Bzzt wrong, yes we do we just call them models or patterns. Perfect example is Lothka-Voltera's pattern. It's a bunch of mathematical formules (hang out hear me out) that can be used to calculate what will happen to a population of predators and a population of prey when they meet. These formulas work for ANY predator + prey from lions to flasheating fungus (yeah that's a real thing). Math nor physics see any notable relations between these creatures but biology does: they are predators. Therefore it is biology, not math that makes these formulas work. In other words biology is explaining something that math nor physics can, giving it even more of a right to exist.

So there you have it, was there some sort of bet involved? I wouldn't mind a cut of the loot.

ps.: sure hope this doesn't get deleted for low content

Sources:
-Philosophy of biology by Elliot Sober
-My awesome taxonomy prof.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

As someone who's field of study is art and language, I would like to approach this question from the opposite end and say that biology definitely is NOT an art. Biologists primarily study things, and when they do create they generally don't do so to make any kind of statement or express an emotion but rather to test a hypothesis. They are, therefor, scientists and what they do must be science. Not even the XKCD comic in question ever claimed that they weren't. Also, math and physics are hardly as purely scientific as their adherents like to make them out to be. Theoretical physics gets into some pretty ridiculous territory without a lot to back it up and mathematics as a whole is merely a form of expression designed to examine factual reality, rather than a part of that reality itself. If anything, mathematics is the MOST artistic of the sciences.

 

[scw55]

If it ends with 'ology' it's a science.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

I don´t even think that the XKCD guy actually believes Biology is not science. In his eyes, it´s just not as "hard" a science as math or physics, whereby his definition of "hard" seems to be to what degree formal logic and reasoning is usually used in the field and how close it comes to his idea of purity of purpose.

Also, everybody in this thread who advised the op to dumb his girlfriend NOW, should really calm down a bit.

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.

Well yes, let´s be fair. While math can look a bit mastubatory at times, there are also many mathematical subfields dealing with practical issues.
And I don´t think we should start judging the science-iness of fields by immediate usefullness. Lest we get attacked by rabid literature students, throwing Proust at us. That shit be heavy.

 

[Sejs Cube]

Yes, it's a science.


Your girlfriend probably shouldn't be taking social cues from XKCD without actually examining them. Kinda doesn't speak well for her.

 

[Sovereignty]

I find it funny she'd try and discredit biology as a science, while supporting psychology...

I mean today must seriously be opposite day if those two's roles are reversed.

 

[Uszi]

Discaimer: I think it is.

Anyway. My girlfriend takes the XKCD stance, whereby she claims that mathematics and physics are the only 'true' sciences, and that all aspects of biology are more akin to an art. Strangely, she seems to think that genetics is exempt, but things like ecology and taxonomy definitely do not fall within the realm of science.
She thinks the same applies to psychology and sociology, though I'd be inclined to agree sometimes, given that those subjects don't deal with phenomena that are immediately or easily quantifiable.

I agree insofar as all biology has a chemical basis, and all chemistry has a physical basis, but still. The systematic study of any phenomena, to me, is a science. We could study anatomy in terms of physics [biophysics dabbles with this], but it seems inherently ridiculous to discredit an entire branch of science because it uses a different set of vocabulary.

Thoughts?


EDIT: Be civilized. I don't appreciate anybody being called an idiot, much less somebody I'm close to. I was asking for an opinion regards this specific question, not my choice of partner.

Having got my undergraduate degree in Biology, I would say yes.

First, if one thought that Taxonomy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy#Various_biological_taxonomies] is the science of sitting in a chair and deciding whether or not a dog is a dog, then one would be a bit mistaken about the level of science involved. There once was a version of taxonomy like this, largely employed and popularized by Linnaes who invented our current system of naming organisms and organizing them based on similarities. But his original method predates the concepts of evolution and genetics, and while aspects of his original system still make up modern Taxonomy, it could hardly be considered exactly the same thing as what Linnaes was doing in 1735. For instance, Linnaes grouped organisms based on superficial relatedness, whereas now-a-days organisms are grouped based on a "best fit" using comparative morphology [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28biology%29] and phylogenetics.

Now, the vanguard in determining the relatedness of species is the science of Phylogenetics, wherein the DNA of organisms is sequenced, and then biologists created various trees based on the statistical probabilities that the organisms are related, and employ occam's razor in simplifying the trees down to the ones that require the fewest evolutionary steps.

Phylogenetics is the shit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics]

Finally, the attitude that Physics and Math are the only "true" science is essentially snot.

What on earth does that statement even mean?

What is the point in making it?

What advantage is entailed in that position other than making the holder of the statement feel inwardly superior about dismissing the important work of entire professions as mere "art."

Biology is the science that has given you germ theory, vaccinations, biotechnology and greater food safety. Biology is the science that is improving crop quality, developing things like Golden Rice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice], which would be saving millions in Asia from death and blindness, if it weren't for the political bullshit surrounding it's distribution. And it does all of this through experimentation and the scientific method.

If all of this is going to be dismissed off hand as "art" due to one's arbitrary and non-useful definition of what a "true" science is, and one is going to do so based on a view expressed in a webcomic then I can't help but completely dismiss it as rubbish, devoid of significance or intellect.

But seriously, if someone tried to argue to my face that String Theory or any part of theoretical Physics is inherently more scientific than Ecology, or Psychology, because Physics is "true" science and Ecology and Psychology are "not true" science, then I would be immediately obligated to put my foot up that person's ass.

FINALLY: I think you guys have misunderstood the orginal comic:

The sciences in the comic are arranged by "purity," not the degree to which they are "science." In so far as something is derivative of something else, it does not make it less valid. And considering that purity is one of the chief values of racists and the religious intolerant, I'm perfectly fine not having "purity" be my chief means of gauging the value of anything.

I suppose it could also be based on the correct understanding of this comic:

But then, I'm not sure that impostor detection is a useful means of determining how scientific a claim is. After all, someone who doesn't know jack shit about Pokemon would probably have a hard time posing as a Pokemaster at one of those, "Come download Celebi!" events.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Economics is a subject that aims to analyze how goods are produced, distributed, and consumed. It's a study of how economic systems work, how it effects various aspects of society, and uses empirical data to create theories, hypothetical ideas, and processes (e.g. the idea of supply and demand).

I'm no economist nor an economy student so I can't give a better example of how economics is a social science.

I would, however, like to know how you see it as an art. I don't have the hands-on experience in the field like you do so you have me at a disadvantage.

Because, ultimately, much of the world runs on two things ... monetary and fiscal policy & supply and demand. Given the nature of these policies, and the nature of human greed, they are the very least like a science.

Sure there are trends ... but everything you do when you're trading in a gamble and there are no 'sure things' ... everything is reliant on supply and demand and the human capacity for consumption.

It's an art at best ... much in the same way you can say there are basic details and core constructs in art (e.g. the 7 elements of Art; line, shape, form, color, texture, space, value...) in economics (e.g. you have; politics, trends, monetary policy, fiscal policy, employment statistics, etc) is much the same.

What causes an interest rate hikes in economics is not as cement as, say, 7 + 7 = 14 ... or the relationships of adenine and thymine & cytosine and guanine in human DNA.

As I said... as someone who engaged with the market firsthand, it's a fucking art ... as the game is set against you from the first second you jump on a platform.

 

[flamingjimmy]

Biology is a lot more scientific than most of theoretical physics, simply because they actually make testable predictions.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

I think its the worst treated science of the main three.

Physicists got to make a nuclear bomb.

Chemists got to make nerve gases and what have you.

But when I try to genetically alter a cat fetus to be bipedal, 15 feet tall and shoot lasers out of it's eyes suddenly I'm the monster.

 

[Snake Plissken]

If it ends with 'ology' it's a science.

Phew...

...good thing I didn't waste all those years studying ASTROLOGY.

 

[Smokej]

Whats with the ignorance about the human sciences and arts. If you are talking about purity you should notice that the "septem artes liberales" are considered the noblest form of science (which includes arithmetic and geometry). The "Artes mechanicae" and their offspring are incredibly useful in our society but do not overestimate their place on a grand perspective.