[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 73 KB, 640x787, 37412643_1364444100357034_8851122780314271744_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10112067 No.10112067 [Reply] [Original]

Physics grad here. Is it wrong that I find biology interesting but hate the fact that most of it is "not rigorous" I was wondering if anyone could point me to some math driven biology

>> No.10112119

>>10112067
>not rigorous
What do you mean?

>> No.10112125

>>10112067
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_biology
this covers pretty much every field that might be of interest to you

>> No.10112129

>>10112067
bioinformatics

>> No.10112172

>>10112067
>”not rigorous”
I don’t know what this means. Maybe you should look into biochemistry or genetics, they are both fairly math driven. Genetics relies heavily on probability calculations.

>> No.10112186

>>10112172
like this anon said, i can attest more to genetics as im about to get my bachelors in biomed.
ive taken a few courses on bioinformatics and biotechnology and its a nice intersection of math and biology. id highly reccomend trying to get into some of this research if it interests you because those aforementioned fields are HIGHLY intersectional

>> No.10112191

>>10112119
>>10112172
>acting like the concept that physics and chemistry is more rigorous than biology is foreign
hi biologists

>> No.10112202

>>10112067
>What is biophysics?
There's an entire field of it son.

>> No.10112207

>>10112191
no one said anything about it being more or less rigorous, he said it is not rigorous. Like other anons said, biophysics and biochem is fairly rigorous, no one said it was "more rigorous" than other fields.

>> No.10112252

>>10112067
game theory

>> No.10112284

It's that way for reason, biological system are complex. I don't see the problem with learning molecular biology, genetics or related fields since they rely on chemistry

>> No.10112315

>>10112284
You can still tackle complexity using rigorous mathematical approaches. In fact I would say it's the only way you can hope to make sense of complex systems.

>> No.10112322

>>10112067
>physics
>rigorous

>> No.10112345

>>10112322
Where did I imply that physics is rigorous?

>> No.10112609

so I'm a biologist and I don't know what you are talking about. pretty much everything I do is math driven. look up biostatistics. seriously you must have not looked into any real biological research before posting this. my bet is you read the origin of species and now you think your an expert. the field of biology is very complex and incorporates ideas from a wide range of disciplines. we use economic theories like portfolio theory and Risk assessment. we also model entire ecosystems. bioenergetics models the use of energy by organism this may be of interest to you. Dynamic energy budget models relate energy flow through the ecosystems. isotopes are used to establish trophic level of organisms. von Bertalanffy function is one of the most commonly used models to describe growth. we also use geostatistics to model spatial data. Biology is not less rigorous than physics. I would argue the opposite. everything a biologist does comes under intense scrutiny by the public because we are responsible for managing the natural resources that an entire regions economy relies on. literally hundreds of billions of dollars. the difference between a biologist and a physics is that the work we do is relevant right now and we generally look for a physical mechanism in nature on which to base our mathematical models. hope that gives you something to go on and maybe you can grow up a bit and not think your field of the only one that matters. cheers

>> No.10112619

>>10112609
Hory shieeeeet BTFO

>> No.10112622

>>10112609
physics is more rigorous retard that doesn’t mean biology is “unrigorous” most of it is being converted to quantitative bio and biophysics so its really a silly thing to assert. I think he’s talking about behavioral biology specifically and possibly ecology.

>> No.10112664

>>10112622
seriously what do you mean being converted into quantitative biology. that's not even a field. if you are a biologist everything you do required some sort of basis in mathematics. you don't know what your talking about. instead of just saying physics is more rigorous why don't you prove it

>> No.10112676

>>10112067
Here you go OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq63fsp9o1o

>> No.10112699

>>10112067
https://arxiv.org/archive/q-bio
Here you go

>> No.10112711

I guarantee you are not capable of working with biophysics or biochemistry. Also, physics is by definition not rigorous.
>>10112609
+1

>> No.10112721
File: 57 KB, 192x192, 1670.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10112721

>>10112315
You're underestimating how stupid biology can get. This isn't some butterfly wing flapping chaos crap, this is genuine, grade A, stupid bullshit.
Biology is the messiest shit in the world.

>> No.10112730
File: 2.53 MB, 368x349, 1470501168554.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10112730

>"biology is easy"
>almost all of our problems right now are in biology and nobody has solutions
lol

>> No.10112789

>>10112622
I don't think you know anything about biology and I doubt that you're a physicist as well.

>> No.10112856

Go do biophysics

>> No.10112877

>>10112345
that spot where you said the word "physics"

>> No.10112880

are there a lot of jobs in biophysics?

what should someone study in undergrad to get into biophysics?

>> No.10112891

>>10112609
>wah wah wah we use complex math

using math =/= using math rigorously.
If you can't lay down axioms and then build up an entire theory from there using only mathematical logic you are not as rigorous as one who does so. Approximating the real world through models is inherently unrigorous, and if you can't face the truth, go model my dick in your ass, faggot

>> No.10112894

/sci/ is such a piece of shit board full of pseudointellectuals.

>> No.10112897

>>10112609
Not quite related but do people consider statistics to be a rigorous field? Doesn't psychology and all those joke sciences use those as well?

>> No.10112911

>>10112891
you mad bro?
I could make a model to for anything and it wouldn't mean shit without some reasonable mechanism behind it to support the math.
physics is an interesting field but not the one answered to anything. they are equal fields of study. however if you can't see past your own personal bias then you are a shitty physicist. if you are one at all.

>> No.10112916

>>10112911
>models have to have a principle behind them
>[physics and biology] are equal [in worth to society(???)]

None of this implies that biology is as rigorous as physics

>> No.10112960

>>10112916
" The NIH has recently defined scientific rigor as “the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results” including “full transparency in reporting experimental details so that others may reproduce and extend the findings” " (Casadevall and Fang 2016).

if you have no basis for a using a particular model outside of it minimizes error (i.e., you lack a mechanism) you can not be conducting rigorous science.

just building a model to describe data perfectly is easy just increase the number of parameters.

>> No.10112975

>>10112897

tonns of people use statistics. it's basically just the analysis and interpretation of data. I don't know of anyone who is just a statistician. it's more about how you do the statistics and how you report your results.

>> No.10112982

>>10112975
You can apply statistics to basically any field though. Does that make any field by definition a rigorous field?

>> No.10112986

>>10112982
no.

see


>>10112960

>> No.10113013

look up genetic algebras

>> No.10113140

>>10112609
Origin of species sucked.

>> No.10113191

>>10113140
care to explain further?

do you have a better alternative hypothesis you would like to put forward?

or would you like to argue for creationism?

let me know... I'll be here waiting

>> No.10113213

>>10113191
It wasn't as good as the movie.

>> No.10113223

>>10112067
Also look up Systems Biology, Complex Systems Biology, Chaos Theory, Systems Theory, and Theoretical Biology

>> No.10113744

>>10113213
never is except the Harry Potter movies were better

>> No.10113750

>>10112067
Biophysics, particularly deriving abiogenesis from thermodynamic principles. There's some interesting work being done in that area.

>> No.10113763

>>10113750
If your school doesn't have a "biophysics" degree, is it best to double major in physics and biomolecular science to get a job in biophysics?

>> No.10113773

>>10112664
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_biology

proper correlation coefficient in physics is close to .99, in bio anything above .3-.6 is considered excellent. Physics is thus much more rigorous.
>>10112789
Good argument, biology is definitely just a social science. You can’t make any predictions at all!

>> No.10113785

>theoryfag
If it's not empirical, it's S H I T

>> No.10113802

why are you cuck posting?

>> No.10113804

>>10113785
Retard

>> No.10113847

>>10113773
correlation is a measured the strength and direction of a relationship it had nothing to do with significant on its own. also the 0.3 to0.6 Pearson correlation coefficient you gave would correspond to a weak relationship in biology. not a strong one. if you have a r of 0.99 it suggests you should think about regression not correlation. and none of this had anything to do with scientific rigorous see

>>10112960

>> No.10113850

>>10113847
then what do you suggest the good biologists do if its somehow not up to this standard you've set? no research on living systems?

>> No.10113871

>>10112622
>physics is more rigorous
Nah, once you start getting into bio that affects peoples health, medicine, virology, microbio and other shit, it's way more rigorous than physics. Nobody cares about gay ass string theory and black holes

>> No.10113874

>>10113871
Medicine is even less rigorous than biology. Why would you even post that?

>> No.10113877

>>10113871
I don't think you understand what people mean here by rigor. It just werks is the opposite of rigorous.

>> No.10113880

>>10113874
>rigorous
Do you know what it means? Medicine is probably the most rigorous field you can work in.

>> No.10113884

>>10113850
no I exclusivity do research on living systems. what do you mean not up to standards? you go out and get more data if you don't have enough. how do you guys think fishing and hunting regulations get set or how we decide if some sort of resource extraction can take place without destroying the environment. biologists do research on living systems to set these regulations and assess the risk of development. is it always perfect no. but rigor implied that the methodologies were sound the data was collected randomly and the analysis was done in an honest manor.

if it's not up too standards it won't survive peer review. and if it did it would be torn apart by the millions of stake holders and corporations who use these resources. this provides a level of scrutiny few other fields in science have. I've personally gone to stock assessment meetings and answered questions from fishermen and I can tell you they are scientifically literate and care very much.

this is not me trying to be a dick btw just pushing back against ops original statement.

>> No.10113894

>>10113884
>how do you guys think fishing and hunting regulations get set or how we decide if some sort of resource extraction can take place without destroying the environment. biologists do research on living systems to set these regulations and assess the risk of development. is it always perfect no
politicians and shills collaborate. In all seriousness I see your point, but I had thought you were arguing this whole time that biology wasn't rigorous at all, which seems ludicrous to me in light of how useful population genetics and biochemistry are.
>and if it did it would be torn apart by the millions of stake holders and corporations who use these resources. this provides a level of scrutiny few other fields in science have
Well corporations aren't really a great measure of the accuracy or rigor of a method or theory, I think that also you're kind of puprosely denigrating physicists, their theories and laws are put to the test over and over by engineering and chemistry. Why wouldn't you apply the same standard to them? And is there anything like Maxwell's equations or the laws of thermodynamics for Biology (with the admission that these are made use of constantly in biology and in Chemistry). I mean they derive the constants and Laws that at least in
approximation, govern the mechanics of all physical systems.

>> No.10113910

>>10113894
I just got wiplash from the tone change here. this is a very intelligent response. thank you. ofcourse your right I was talking shit about physicists perhaps unfairly. I would definitely hold them to the same standards.

my point with the corporations was is there is any blood in the water so to speak they will lack. meaning that if you didn't cover all your bases you will hear about it from them.

I think I already posted about bioenergetics and growth. look up dynamic energy budget models, or Climate change research, there is an interesting paper about optimal decision making by fish " should I stay or should I go", or even just a stock assessment. all of these things are examples of rigorous biology which has its basis in mathematics.

>> No.10114355

>>10113880
Medicine is not even a scientific field so it doesn't make sense to compare it with biology. The kind of rigour you are thinking of is closer to sticking to a set of rules that tell you how to conduct yourself in any given situation rather than what we are talking about here, which is rigour in the scientific context.

>> No.10114468

>>10112609
Simon?

>> No.10114490

most of biology is much more complex than physics so it can't be described with simple laws and equations

>> No.10114494

You just have to study biology. Then if you are good enough scientist you can do rigorous research. The only thing keeping you from doing rigorous biology is yourself. Remember that you pick what you want to research. It's totally possible to do rigorus research in any field of biology, from genomics to community ecology.
I've studied biology my entire life and now I'm going to get a bachelor's in math/computer science so I can do rigorus research in ecology. Although I began studying math and logic primarily because of philsophy.
Biology is as rigorus as you can make it.

>> No.10114515

>>10114468
I wrote that and I'm not Simon. I'm just ajake fyi

>> No.10115877

I did a dual major of Biology and Physics. My biology classes were a breeze to, but I did an ecology specilization. I did have to take Human A&P, Cell Bio., Micro Bio., and Genetics but they weren't too difficult. O-chem fails a lot of students, but I had proper study habits and found surprisingly easy and got an A. As a physics student you'll love NMR spectrometry. Anyways, I noticed my school had a Biophysics major, and I had completed almost half of it with bio, chem, calc, so I spend an extra year and got both degrees. Could had easily done it in four if I planned for it at the beginning.

>> No.10115912

>>10115877
What are you doing now and where are you from?

>> No.10115943

>>10115912
As of now I'm doing the stereotypical MBA, and I'm from America. I'm more interested in the corporate side of things and not academia. I want to run an R&D department one day. Most likely I'll end up at a meme consulting firm. They like math/physic majors.