Do you consider biology as a science? Watch

ChocolateMelody
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report 5 years ago
#61
I would have thought it was obviously a science - what else would it be?
0
reply
Ebony19
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#62
Report 5 years ago
#62
It's a language
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 5 years ago
#63
(Original post by Joinedup)
nice to see it again... don't their middle class 1980s houses look strange though
In what way?

I dislike the open staircase/banister arrangement, which is really 1970s, but most houses of that period still have them.
0
reply
ConsiderScience
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#64
Report 5 years ago
#64
Yes biology is a science.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Black Rose
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
#65
Report 5 years ago
#65
Yeah I do, don't know why exactly but I do...
0
reply
prafto
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#66
Report 5 years ago
#66
(Original post by elohssa)
It's a science. However most people who do it would fail at physics, maths or chemistry.
That makes no sense. I take all 4 and my physics and maths marks are miles higher than my Biology marks... Though I have to say, Biology is my favourite
2
reply
Nebida
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#67
Report 5 years ago
#67
Not sure if a troll, frankly I don't care, your argument is still flawed.

(Original post by Masoudy)
You guys don't even discover new stuff anymore (except in CERN or NASA, if you ever get there). We do actual discovery today (i.e. we science)
Contradictory much? NASA haven't just made discoveries in space, but they have given us many things we use today e.g. memory foam, ear thermometer, long-distance telecomms, e.t.c. [cit: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/cu...ventions10.htm]

I will hand it to you though, the smallpox vaccination was quite the discovery, what, 200 years ago? But you'll get there, baby steps and all.

(Original post by Masoudy)
So your statement of "no science without engineering" isn't accurate
Hmm, I dunno, I'm sure that the industrial revolution helped a bit with the development of all sciences (and biology). Also the chemical plants used to mass produce the drugs needed to cure biological diseases were designed by who? Oh yeah, engineers...

(Original post by Masoudy)
To mathematicians / Business students: You're not science
Haha, you're so funny. I know you've only just mastered colouring and that adding numbers is a bit to advanced for the likes of you, but I assure you maths is a science, it is the backbone of science without which none of the others would exist.

Good luck with life and have fun teaching disinterested proletariats about leaves and stuff.

Love
Real Scientists
0
reply
ConnorB
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#68
Report 5 years ago
#68
(Original post by Masoudy)
Yes it is. Here is an open message to all jealous w**kers out there:

To physicists: Stamp collecting crap Rutherford said last century is outdated. You guys don't even discover new stuff anymore (except in CERN or NASA, if you ever get there). We do actual discovery today (i.e. we science)

To engineers: Yes we do Molecular techniques called "genetic engineering" that do not involve engineering. It is adding and mixing different reagents to create new genes. So your statement of "no science without engineering" isn't accurate and engineering in genetic engineering is not engineering

To mathematicians / Business students: You're not science

To doctors: We lecture you

To chavs: You don't even uni

To snobby Oxford history/philosophy students: You're studying something impractical, find a job after your degree you bloody w**ker

Love
Biologists
What career prospects are exclusive to Biologists? I ask not out of malice, I just would like to know
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#69
Report 5 years ago
#69
(Original post by Masoudy)
Yes it is. Here is an open message to all jealous w**kers out there:

To physicists: Stamp collecting crap Rutherford said last century is outdated. You guys don't even discover new stuff anymore (except in CERN or NASA, if you ever get there). We do actual discovery today (i.e. we science)

To engineers: Yes we do Molecular techniques called "genetic engineering" that do not involve engineering. It is adding and mixing different reagents to create new genes. So your statement of "no science without engineering" isn't accurate and engineering in genetic engineering is not engineering

To mathematicians / Business students: You're not science

To doctors: We lecture you

To chavs: You don't even uni

To snobby Oxford history/philosophy students: You're studying something impractical, find a job after your degree you bloody w**ker

Love
Biologists
Why respond to ignorance with a narrow minded post like that? It is a farce to call history or philosophy "impractical". Also, your grammar is a bit weak. May I please edit your post and correct your errors?
0
reply
Masoudy
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#70
Report 5 years ago
#70
(Original post by Rational Thinker)
Why respond to ignorance with a narrow minded post like that? It is a farce to call history or philosophy "impractical". Also, your grammar is a bit weak. May I please edit your post and correct your errors?
Please do
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 5 years ago
#71
(Original post by Masoudy)
Yes it is. Here is an open message to all jealous w**kers out there:

To physicists: Stamp collecting crap Rutherford said last century is outdated. You guys don't even discover new stuff anymore (except in CERN or NASA, if you ever get there). We do actual discovery today (i.e. we science)

To engineers: Yes we do Molecular techniques called "genetic engineering" that do not involve engineering. It is adding and mixing different reagents to create new genes. So your statement of "no science without engineering" isn't accurate and engineering in genetic engineering is not engineering

To mathematicians / Business students: You're not science

To doctors: We lecture you

To chavs: You don't even uni

To snobby Oxford history/philosophy students: You're studying something impractical, find a job after your degree you bloody w**ker

Love
Biologists
I have highlighted the grammatically non standard areas. Please learn to see that it is not a divide between the humanities and the sciences.
0
reply
Masoudy
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#72
Report 5 years ago
#72
(Original post by ConnorB)
What career prospects are exclusive to Biologists? I ask not out of malice, I just would like to know
Nothing is really exclusive to biologists, I would point out where would biologists wanna work:

1) Pharmaceuticals; research and development. E.g. producing aspirin/insulin from bacteria every morning

2) Lecturing at uni or teaching science to A levels; GCSE

3) Science journal editors; science writers in science magazines

4) All the cool people in national geographic

5) Researchers in research labs: could be government labs, company labs, private institutions or uni labs

6) Forensics e.g. DNA fingerprinting, extracting DNA from semen

7) Doing different ecology shizzles and nag everyone for global warming

8) Extracting ores using microorganisms. This was actually mentioned by my professor in his last week's lecture. He was called by an Australian company to invent some bacteria to extract copper or gold from western Australia and he did

9) Food safely in governments; McDonalds and other fast food giants

For me, I am hoping to go to 2 or 5. Would really LOVE researching something never discovered before. It can get you super rich or super famous or make you feel very satisfied after you cure cancer or something
0
reply
myblueheaven339
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#73
Report 5 years ago
#73
Yes, as it applies the scientific method. I don't know if I agree about it being easy though, but I haven't studied the others to the same level so can't be sure. I think it is the least abstract of the three natural sciences however, which can make it appear easier.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Maid Marian
Badges: 20
#74
Report 5 years ago
#74
Yes, definitely! I don't know why anyone wouldn't consider it one.
0
reply
Obiejess
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 5 years ago
#75
Yes. Anyone that says otherwise is a fool.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
mynameisntbobk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#76
Report 5 years ago
#76
Yes /thread
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report 5 years ago
#77
(Original post by nulli tertius)
In what way?

I dislike the open staircase/banister arrangement, which is really 1970s, but most houses of that period still have them.
Probably more to do with what sort of domestic interiors the advertisers show you now vs then
I mainly noticed the kitchen - it's not very 'aspirational', I bet the students in the current BT adverts have a better kitchen than that, probably it's got a fridge that dispenses ice cubes.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#78
Report 5 years ago
#78
(Original post by Joinedup)
Probably more to do with what sort of domestic interiors the advertisers show you now vs then
I mainly noticed the kitchen - it's not very 'aspirational', I bet the students in the current BT adverts have a better kitchen than that, probably it's got a fridge that dispenses ice cubes.
Very probably but they are very good fridges!

I have had several upgrades of that model (Hotpoint) over the years for different houses. The beauty of them is the freezer is at the top and is a single compartment with shelves rather than a set of drawers.

Of course what is wrong about it is that Beattie is Jewish and so she would have had a milky fridge and a meaty fridge.
0
reply
Sanji4796
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 5 years ago
#79
It definitely is a science for the reasons mentioned throughout this thread, it's just that a lot of people see it as the easiest out of the sciences, causing a lot of less able people to take it as a token science to help their application look better. This may be why biologists, on average, seem less intelligent than chemists and physicists. At any rate, it's a lot better than humanities, arts and social sciences
0
reply
myblueheaven339
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 5 years ago
#80
(Original post by Sanji4796)
It definitely is a science for the reasons mentioned throughout this thread, it's just that a lot of people see it as the easiest out of the sciences, causing a lot of less able people to take it as a token science to help their application look better. This may be why biologists, on average, seem less intelligent than chemists and physicists. At any rate, it's a lot better than humanities, arts and social sciences
Bit of an over generalisation don't you think?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (200)
22.57%
The paper was reasonable (402)
45.37%
Not feeling great about that exam... (165)
18.62%
It was TERRIBLE (119)
13.43%

Watched Threads

View All