The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
i just looked at my user rep and find it amusing that some cowardly anonymous person has said that I'm "WRONG WRONG WRONG" for having my opinion. Hahaha, weirdo!
Reply 61
Chemistry ftw, always! I don't take physics...but that's partly because I have a fear of numbers. Just the right amount of maths in chemistry for me :biggrin: Biology's a good subject, just terribly taught....but you don't do much thinking in biology and that's partly why it sucks. Also partly because I have my biology exam on Monday.
Reply 62
Mario_Party
We can make rollercoasters super fun but still understand that the g-forces in that roller coaster won't make us too ill et cetera.

and who honestly cares about how to extract aluminium?

How do you plan to build your rollercoaster exactly? Dont be such an idiot.
Reply 63
Mario_Party
^_^ I knew that was going to come up. I personally don't care about extracting the aluminium, and virtually no one who takes the science courses is going to spend their life extracting aluminium, so it isn't worth learning. It would be better to learn how to do things that are more applicable. No subject does this well though, however, biology is the worst.

The probability of someone who does physics A-level going on to run CERN is even lower - by your criterium physics isn't worth learning either - such an approach is farcical and ridiculous.
Classic, Theodore.
Chemistry and Biology would be nothing without Physics.

Think about it, Physics includes the basics of atoms.
Without that, there would be no chemistry.
Without Chemistry, there would be no Biology.


That assumes that first we did physics and then we did chemistry and then we did biology, but we didn't. We had many chemists doing great science before physics had even come up with a realistic model of the atom (Mendelev produced the periodic table in 1869 over 40 years before the Bohr atom). Just because modern physics has found good ways to describe fundamental phenomena doesn't mean a) that physics owns these phenomena, b) that the thorough understanding of them is a necessary prerequisite to using them to make other scientific breakthroughs. Trying to claim that other scientific fields are somehow beholden to physics denies the historical development of the natural sciences.
Reply 65
Physics > Biology > Chemistry
I chose chemistry just because I love it a fair bit, but I like physics a lot too. I think I prefer knowing why things happen as opposed to just what happens which a lot of biology seems to be. Having said that, I... don't actually mind biology either :p: Does that make me rare?

Anyway, chemistry's my favourite but they all have their place, non?
Abra
And please state why!


Biology is for those who are unfit for real science.
And at school it seems to be taught by women who natter on about ecology.
Reply 68
Classic, Theodore.
I'm not talking about historical development, I'm talking about now.

All Chemistry has its roots in Physics.
I'm not talking about ownership or who owes what to whom.
All Chemistry can be explained by the science of Physics - not the other way around.

A common misunderstanding.
Classic, Theodore.
I'm not talking about historical development, I'm talking about now.

All Chemistry has its roots in Physics.
I'm not talking about ownership or who owes what to whom.
All Chemistry can be explained by the science of Physics - not the other way around.


I'm afraid you can't just cut science off from its history because that is what we use to define science. Although I don't see how one can say that chemistry has its 'roots' in physics when one doesn't want to talk about history...

I know that all chemistry cannot be explained by physics (in my field quantum mechanics gets us so far, but we still have to experiment in order to get the answers we are looking for, for example) and that the two subjects are both areas of strong active research where new things are being discovered all the time. To claim that one can simply be explained by the other is a nonsense.

However, this view is typical of someone who hasn't actually done any scientific research. If all chemistry can be explained by physics then it should all be easily accessible to a physicist - I don't see many doing organic synthesis though. Physics attempts to understand fundamentals, but that doesn't mean that the stuff physics produces necessarily scales up to more complex systems (quantum mechanics is a classic example). At the end of the day the fundamental understanding of our universe still has a long way to go before it can accurately and precisely predict the behaviour of complex systems, and until that time one cannot say that physics and, by association, physicists are able to explain phenomena in other sciences.
Classic, Theodore.
Well, ladies, I've moved on. You should too.


I'll take that as an agreement to my points.
Reply 71
physics cuz its got more math and everything in it makes more sense... and there's less to just learn... bio is too much to learn.. and chem is just plain old boring... first class i cud actually really sleep in!!
Reply 72
It's got to be Biology for me. It's easy for me to remember most of the important parts because you are a living representation of Biology. whereas Chemistry and Physics, they are just there to confuse you.

I dont understand why there is so much hatred towards Biology on this thread lol. What makes it so awful ?
Reply 73
Classic, Theodore.
Take it as you will.
You see, there's no point trying to discuss anything with people like you because you don't actually listen to what other people say and just carry on talking, pointlessly, over the same points that someone has just obliterated.

I refuse to discuss anything with you because you cannot seem to understand that other people have views and that you get things wrong.

Thats the difference with science I suppose - when you are wrong people aren't afraid to tell you of that.

You were wrong, you got told - grow up and get over it.
Classic, Theodore.
Take it as you will.
You see, there's no point trying to discuss anything with people like you because you don't actually listen to what other people say and just carry on talking, pointlessly, over the same points that someone has just obliterated.

I refuse to discuss anything with you because you cannot seem to understand that other people have views and that you get things wrong.


Put the toys back in the pram.
I like physics, but chemistry for me is easier.
Reply 76
Psychology!


Ah the arguements i've seen between teachers and pupils about psychology being a science :p:


Having studied chemistry and biology, its got to be biology for me. Chemistry i found dull and uninspiring, the only bits I enjoyed were biology related such as the carbon/nitrogen cycles, and amino acid structures. I'm much more interested in the science of the human body.

I havent studied physics yet but I will have a module on it at university and I think I will enjoy it a bit more than chemistry. Cant say why though.
Reply 77
Spiffy
Ah the arguements i've seen between teachers and pupils about psychology being a science :p:

It's not - a science require reproduceable results, whereas psychology is less defined by rules - You could call it a social science but that's a stupid term.
Reply 78
Classic, Theodore.
Grow up and get over it.

You can teach a parrot to mimick - it's hardly a skill to be proud of.
Reply 79
Biology, just because I like the functions of organs :smile:

Latest