Turn on thread page Beta

Biology - should it be a Science? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hyn_shayan)
    Do you not think then that Biology is basically applied Physics and Chemistry?
    This smug 'applied' crap is starting to piss me off, along with little school kids (who haven't done a day's science in their lives) who post that xkcd comic that perpetuates it.

    It's meaningless. Utterly meaningless. Any given scientific field exists on the back of its relative accomplishments that would not have been acheived by the field on the next theoretical plane above it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think OP is thinking of XKCD

    As for there being theory involved in biology, there is lots. Some of it can be explained by chemical interactions or physics but there is still things such as development of an organism that isn't really derivable
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Reminds me of:



    Source: http://xkcd.com/435/
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hyn_shayan)
    Do you not think then that Biology is basically applied Physics and Chemistry?
    Well, no. What do you mean by 'applied'? Less 'pure'? Less 'fundamental'? Does its working at a less fundamental level, a larger scale, make it less scientific? No.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Science is a method. Simple as.

    You can pick any warped semantic perspective on anything and define it accordingly.

    To me, a person is a lemon. You're not a lemon. Therefore you're not a person.

    amidoinitrite?
    A physicist would say otherwise.
    As a physicist, I say otherwise. If I was to employ the same methods as you in one of my practicals, I would almost definitely fail.
    It's not enough to say "a pendulum sways from side to side, and the amplitude slowly gets smaller". I have to say "the time period of a pendulum's oscillation is equal to 2?(l/g)^1/2 and that the amplitude decreases exponentially with time. Observation isn't enough.

    I'm sure we discussed this in the psychology thread? Are we really going to repeat this?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    Well, no. What do you mean by 'applied'? Less 'pure'? Less 'fundamental'? Does its working at a less fundamental level, a larger scale, make it less scientific? No.
    Thanks for clearing that up
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hyn_shayan)
    Do you not think then that Biology is basically applied Physics and Chemistry?
    Don't you think that physics is just applied maths and chemistry?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hyn_shayan)
    Indeed. But like someone previously said. Isn't photosynthesis, cells and such fact rather than theory as they have been seen and observed?

    And doesn't it all come back to Chemistry and Physics
    Oh dear. You clearly don't know what a scientific theory is. Maybe this will help (incidentally, it's the first time I've posted this outside of the religion forum):


    'The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.' USNAS
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    A physicist would say otherwise.
    As a physicist
    As a physicist, you'd be wrong.

    Science is a method. End of.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oddsox)
    Don't you think that physics is just applied maths and chemistry?
    I think that Chemistry is applied Maths and Physics actually.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by js374)
    Reminds me of:



    Source: http://xkcd.com/435/
    I do love that one. Whilst as a biochemist I see maths are being more important than science, I don't class maths as a science itself. Unless anyone would like to give some good reasons to change my mind.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    As a physicist, you'd be wrong.

    Science is a method. End of.
    Oh, well you must be right.

    Like I'm going to listen to a psychologist
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    Oh, well you must be right.
    Yup.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion yes, most certainly yes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    Oh, well you must be right.

    Like I'm going to listen to a psychologist
    What's wrong with psychology?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oddsox)
    Don't you think that physics is just applied maths and chemistry?
    Physics is applied maths.
    But maths can't be considered a science. Science produces theories than can be validated by experiment, and you can't validate maths with experiment. Once you start applying it to the real world, it becomes physics. Until then, it's just abstract numbers and methods. The single most useful tool in human history, but not science.

    Chemistry is applied physics. Specifically, it's physics applied to particles larger than the subatomic particles, but no bigger than molecular level. When you do proper chemistry, you just apply physics to objects on that scale. Physicists model "particles" from the size of the leptons to the size of entire galaxies.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sicarius1992)
    I don't class maths as a science itself. Unless anyone would like to give some good reasons to change my mind.
    It's not a science. 'Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.' Maths is basically a game, with no relation to the world; there are a set of rules with mathematicians mess around with to see what happens.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hyn_shayan)
    What's wrong with psychology?
    Nothing. Hence the face.

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hyn_shayan)
    Do you think Biology is a science? Doesn't it just used physical and chemical laws to observe and experiment. I mean there is very little theory involved in it. I'm not sure. Anyone want to inform me or give an opinion?
    Buy a textbook. Read it. If there's no theory to it, it should be easy to tell me about when you're done.

    Jesus christ, I don't do biology, and even I can see the amount of work (I.B.) Biologists do, and how much theory they learn.

    _Kar.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Biology is a key part of scientific endeavour and anyone who dismisses it is a complete turd-burglar.

    All science is connected and contributes to human understanding of the universe and ourselves, even social science. Scientists from different backgrounds simply have different skills and specialties that they focus on and working together they build a holistic picture of the physical and human universe. That's why I do geography, because it's right at the centre of the interactions between the physical and human world and seeks to understand both. The real goal of science is to produce a working model of the universe incorporating everything. There are no "sciences", only fields of science.

    And mathematics is the language of science, not a part of it. It's not somehow more "pure" than science, it's what scientists use to explain their theories in the very simplest of terms when possible. Mathematicians are those who advance our understanding of the language of the universe.
 
 
 

University open days

  • University of Warwick
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
  • University of Sheffield
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
  • Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.