Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    Better than being a psychologist? I think so.
    Yeah yeah. Go back to school before teacher gets mad, little boy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    What about drug trials in medicine? Is that not experimentation? (Which is how "Science" has been defined here).
    It's not medicine, it's biomedicine or biochemistry. There's no reason why medics can't also be active scientists, and indeed many are - contributing to the development of new biological principles and information by reporting what they see in every day life, or working in a lab as part of their duties, but in their role as medics they are the applicators of science rather than scientists.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    but I'd argue that actual medical practice (whilst scientific) is not actually science.
    How so? (I'm not trying to be obstinate here, I'm genuinely asking)
    Offline

    14
    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?
    Trust me, Molecular Biology and Stem Cell Biology is one of the hardest things I've done, and it involves lots of mathematical modelling, a well as a hypothesis, with the aim of giving evidence for and against that. The fundamentals of science (the latter bit).

    And yes, GCSE and even A level Biology doesn't really ive justice to it. I probably wouldn't have taken if it I knew just how damn hard it would be at degree level.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    Stop being so rude. It wouldn't be so bad if you were at least right, but this is just embarrassing. I am a scientist, I am employed in an academic research institution. I read scientific journals every single day. Do you know what they're not all filled with? Equations for every little thing, because that's not what science is about.
    Care to say what Science? Also, concerning the rudeness, it is partly birdmans fault as he's not being entirely civil.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    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.
    Electrons are subatomic particles and some would say the crux of chemistry (or at least a large part of it) is the electron.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    Lol, the arguments in this thread remind me of this comic:



    Apologies if someone has already posted it, I haven't read all the posts.

    Anyway, this whole thing is nothing more than physicists feeling superior because mathematics is more 'pure' and can be unquestionably proved, whereas biology is more applied and based on observation. Science isn't about theoretical proofs and formulae, it's about explaining the world, be that through theory or observation, it's still science. Even things like sociology are still sciences of sorts, they're just... less pure, because human behaviour is such a complex and random thing. It's pointless arguing about it though, because however much you may argue, having the biological knowledge to save someone's life is more important than finding prime numbers.
    Totally agree. Science isn't just about experiments and theories. Even Economics could be labelled as a science 'in a way'.

    Edit - Why the neg?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    Biophysics, I think you'll find, is the answer to that.
    Biology can be a science in the same vein as physics with the correct approach, but simply observing and describing isn't enough in my view.
    Biophysics definitely isn't the answer. Biophysics doesn't come close to the depth of understanding that physicists have. And I can function perfectly well as a biologist without any physics beyond A-level.

    Biology is about more than observing and describing - this is just the tool for finding out new information. Almost every new piece of biological information must be determined experimentally. But the interpretation of experimental data to formulate theories, and then the application of theories to explain what happens at the level of the organism is essential at the front-line of research. In addition to this, applied biological sciences such as my discipline of medicine require detailed understanding of a broad range of concepts and the ability to critically use this to solve problems.

    I agree that biology is a proper science - but that doesn't mean we have to work out everything from first principles and mathematics. Due to the applied nature of biology and the complexity of biological systems, it is helpful to make certain assumptions allowing our focus to be on the biological variables in a system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This is a really fascinating thread
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Yeah yeah. Go back to school before teacher gets mad, little boy.
    Funny, how after doing your brilliant university degree, this is the pinnacle of your argument. You'd think you'd actually be able to muster up something rational, but rather than consider the points in a balanced and reasoned arguments, you make childish (and false) claims. Congratulations. I'm going to be the adult here and call an end to this. I'm above it, if you weren't so bitter then I'm sure you would be too.

    (Original post by Kinkerz)
    Electrons are subatomic particles and some would say the crux of chemistry (or at least a large part of it) is the electron.
    That's where the lines between physics and chemistry become hazy. Chemists call in physical chemistry, and rob the Schrödinger equation from physics.
    Theoretically, the entire periodic table can be explained with the Schrödinger equation, although practically that only works up to Lithium.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well, the Arts and Humanities don't want it...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    That's where the lines between physics and chemistry become hazy. Chemists call in physical chemistry, and rob the Schrödinger equation from physics.
    Theoretically, the entire periodic table can be explained with the Schrödinger equation, although practically that only works up to Lithium.
    The lines between all scientific disciplines are hazy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For those who think biology is in need of a bit more 'theory' or a few more equations...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    That's where the lines between physics and chemistry become hazy. Chemists call in physical chemistry, and rob the Schrödinger equation from physics.
    The lines are hazy because they don't exist. They are arbitrary human creations, for convenience. At what point do you draw the cut-off line for science?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    How so? (I'm not trying to be obstinate here, I'm genuinely asking)
    Well a medic who's treating disease is using scientific knowledge, but no more so than a baker or a builder mixing cement (albeit at a higher level )
    They're not 'doing science', there's no testing of hypotheses, or controlled experiment etc.

    (Original post by StephenP91)
    Care to say what Science? Also, concerning the rudeness, it is partly birdmans fault as he's not being entirely civil.
    Neuroscience. In fairness, JayTeeKay kinda started it both here and in the psychology thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    Funny, how after doing your brilliant university degree, this is the pinnacle of your argument. You'd think you'd actually be able to muster up something rational, but rather than consider the points in a balanced and reasoned arguments, you make childish (and false) claims. Congratulations. I'm going to be the adult here and call an end to this. I'm above it, if you weren't so bitter then I'm sure you would be too.
    Cool story. Does that mean you're actually going to go and look at some formal definitions of 'science' or are you just going to continue to concoct your own? You clearly do not understand what science is.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    The lines are hazy because they don't exist. They are arbitrary human creations, for convenience. At what point do you draw the cut-off line for science?
    I would say that fundamentally, science is physics and that chemistry is the application of the area of physics that deals with particles from the subatomic to the molecular level.
    It's not practical to model everything with physical principles, hence why subjects like biology etc. are still studied, but if you really wanted to, you could explain everything using physics (biophysics is an example).
    I realise that nobody here shares that view, but rather than interpreting it as an attack on other scientific disciplines, instead view it as part of the discussion. Feel free to disagree, but please don't take offense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayTeeKay)
    Oh, well you must be right.

    Like I'm going to listen to a psychologist
    Way to rock the ad hominem dude.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    Neuroscience. In fairness, JayTeeKay kinda started it both here and in the psychology thread.
    I thought I was quite civilised in the psychology thread? I'll admit ive been an **** here, but I don't think simply having a different viewpoint is uncivil. Maybe I haven't communicated it nicely, but still. The only thing that's spilled over from the psychology thread is my general viewpoint.
    It takes two to tango. We're both guilty. I'll do my best not to start up anything again.
    Offline

    19
    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 god, are you kidding? I theory is an idea that explains a bunch of observations. It is not the same as a hypothesis.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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.

  • 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.