/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3745237]

Biology is a hard science!

[Anonymous No.3745247]

engineering is the king of the sciences, mathematics is the queen.
biology is the jester

[Anonymous No.3745250]

>>3745237

[Anonymous No.3745266]

>>3745247
>engineering
>field of science


Nope. Engineering is more like the retarded cousin of science.

[Anonymous No.3745292]

>>3745237
Name one testable and inviolable axiom of biology.

[Anonymous No.3745294]

>biology

Wow, what a terrible field.

[Anonymous No.3745303]

>>3745237
Of course

[Anonymous No.3745310]

We seriously need a /bio/ board.

That way we can keep nonsense threads like this one out of sci, and biologists can engage in their denialist circle jerking without offending our eyes.

[Anonymous No.3745322]

>>3745292
>axiom in science

>doesn't know the difference between science and mathematics

[Anonymous No.3745331]

>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310
>>3745310

DO IT.

[Anonymous No.3745334]

>>3745292
>Cells are the basic unit of life
>New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution
>Genes are the basic unit of heredity
>An organism regulates its internal environment to maintain a stable and constant condition
>Living organisms consume and transform energy.

Thats all

[Anonymous No.3745345]

>>3745310
>implying there are any biologist in this thread

[Anonymous No.3745354]

>>3745345
> implying anybody else would claim that biology is a science

wtf is up with your logic bro, seriously?

[Anonymous No.3745355]

>>3745237
Agreed

[Anonymous No.3745365]

>>3745237
>hard

lol

[Anonymous No.3745368]

>>3745354
>Implying a physicist didn't make the thread, cause he is sick of the anti-bio bullshit

We should be focusing our hate on non-sciences, like lib-arts or engineering (homosexuals).

[Anonymous No.3745372]

pure "biologists" are rare anyway. most "biologists" actually blend multiple disciplines and usually are biochemists or biophysicists (i.e. hard scientists)

[Anonymous No.3745376]

>>3745368
or worthless 'american scientists' who have to resort to stealing the achievements of europe

[Anonymous No.3745379]

>>3745334
>viruses are life
>species are defined ambiously
>not all genes get shared, not all genes are transmitted
>not a biological axiom
>fire does this


anyone else want to try?

[Anonymous No.3745380]

Protip: Biology is more of a science than Computer Science or Engineering.

[Anonymous No.3745381]

>>3745376
congratulations. you have somehow managed to make this argument more retarded by adding a eurofag vs. amerifuck dimension to it. 9/10 troll.

[Anonymous No.3745383]

>>3745365
Yep, Biology is classified as a "hard" science.

Physics, Chemistry and Biology make up the "hard sciences".

All other sciences are classified as "soft sciences".

Engineering is classified as "homosexual studies".

[Anonymous No.3745389]

>>3745383
hard = erect cock.

[Anonymous No.3745392]

>>3745379
>implying axioms are used in science

[Anonymous No.3745394]

>>3745376
>no good american scientists

>hawking
>Sagan
>not good

nigga you are so fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.3745401]

>>3745379
l2 definition of life. have you ever even taken biology?

>cells as main units
>homeostasis
>grow and develop
>reproduce
>DNA as hereditary information
>evolve over time
>require energy

[Anonymous No.3745404]

>>3745379

>viruses are life

WhatthefuckamIreading?.jpg

>not all genes get shared, not all genes are transmitted

What does this even fucking mean?

[Anonymous No.3745408]

>>3745389
>loves to talk about cocks

Where did you get your engineering degree from?

[Anonymous No.3745412]

>>3745408
highschool fag. your meaningless terminology bemuses me.

[Anonymous No.3745419]

>>3745394

>Hawking
>Sagan
>Scientist

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3745421]

>>3745379
>viruses are life
lol
>species are defined ambiously
lol
>not all genes get shared, not all genes are transmitted
lol
>not a biological axiom
lol
>fire does this
lol

[Anonymous No.3745435]

>>3745401
So, not axiomatic.

Good try, it's almost like you ever followed along.

Got any other useless definitions to try to curtail the ever growing fear that biology consists of nothing more than parrots?

[Anonymous No.3745439]

>>3745404
do viruses have cells?

Do they spread their genes?

Wow. looks like life to me.

[Anonymous No.3745450]

>>3745439
Viruses aren't life...they're self-replicating molecules. I can't even believe you don't know this. This isn't even debatable, it's just a fact. VIRUSES ARE NOT CONSIDERED LIFE. Someone obviously never took high school bio...

[Anonymous No.3745453]

>>3745439

not that guy but

>do viruses have cells?
no
>Do they spread their genes?
yes

[Anonymous No.3745457]

>>3745237
Anyways, back to the proposition, before you idiots get confused:

>>3745292

[Anonymous No.3745461]

>>3745450
God. Damn it.

How many times do we need to go over this on this board?

[Anonymous No.3745464]

>>3745461
one more time apparently

[Anonymous No.3745460]

>>3745237
Nice thread OP

[Anonymous No.3745465]

>>3745383

I'm a neuroengineer, I study applied biophysical chemistry.

What now?

[Anonymous No.3745466]

>>3745450
Eh?

YOURE A SELF REPLICATING MOLECULE.


Sounds like we got a whole lot of giological butthurt in this hizzous.

[Anonymous No.3745469]

>>3745439

>do viruses have cells?

What the fuck? No, are you 12?

>Do they spread their genes?

Do you mean does DNA (not every virus contains or uses DNA) from one virus get replicated and encapsulated in groups of translated viral proteins sometimes?

Yes.

Do you mean, does it create progeny that "inherit" a genetic lineage?

No, or the Alu and L1 LTR sequences in your genome would be considered life too.

[Anonymous No.3745474]

>>3745466
>giological

wut

[Anonymous No.3745485]

>>3745457
inviolable axiom? the central dogma of biology. mission accomplished.

[Anonymous No.3745482]

>>3745457
>testable axiom
>AXIOM
>AXIOM

Do you evern know what an axiom is?

[Anonymous No.3745489]

>>3745292
Is anyone going to answer this challenge?

>>3745334
Failed miserably.

[Anonymous No.3745491]

>>3745489

see >>3745485

[Anonymous No.3745495]

>>3745489
http://www.squidoo.com/central-dogma

[Anonymous No.3745492]

>>3745465
>engineer

So you mean your a faggot?

[Anonymous No.3745498]

>>3745491
How is that an axiom?

[Anonymous No.3745506]

>>3745489
What is am axiom of physics or chemitry then?
Can you give any?

It sounds like your just butt-hurt cause the hot girls in biology won't give you the fucking time of day. Sorry, bro. Maybe if you stop being a little bitch and man up, you would get more pussy.

[Anonymous No.3745507]

>>3745498
outside of mathematics, the definition of axiom is simply any established principle. obvious mathfag is obvious.

[Anonymous No.3745510]

>>3745498
It's not, there are no axioms in biology, as there are no axioms in physics, or chemistry, or anything in reality. Not that we can know anyway. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.3745515]

>>3745498
Name one thing in physics that is an "axiom"?
Can you?

[Anonymous No.3745528]

Axiom has no true context outside of mathematics. You are all faggots.

[Anonymous No.3745526]

>>3745469
I often do think of transposons as the simplest "lifeforms" we know about. Remnants from the most ancient period in the evolution of life, these sequences are leftover "organisms" from the molecular world. Clever enough to hitch themselves into more complex systems.

[Anonymous No.3745525]

>>3745507
>axiom is simply any established principle

[Anonymous No.3745529]

>>3745526
>I often do think

as if anyone gives a fuck what you think.

[Anonymous No.3745536]

>>3745529
Well that's all there is to it, we'll never know any of these ideas for certain, and we don't have adequate language to describe them anyway. "Life" is a horribly ambiguous and arbitrary definition of anything.

[Anonymous No.3745542]

>>3745507
>doesn't know how to use wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

Among the most important topics are five unifying principles that can be said to be the fundamental axioms of modern biology:

1) Cells are the basic unit of life
2) New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution
3) Genes are the basic unit of heredity
4) An organism regulates its internal environment to maintain a stable and constant condition
5) Living organisms consume and transform energy

[Anonymous No.3745544]

>>3745526

And you're probably partly right (although the simplest "life" were probably RNA molecules).

They aren't definable as life though. They're simply chemicals doing what they do. The vestiges of a period before recognizable life.

[Anonymous No.3745547]

>>3745525
Except, thats right you fucking moron. Nothing can have an axiom as rigid as... well, mathematics. Chemistry and Physics would fail your shitty litmus test as well.

[Anonymous No.3745549]

>>3745542
>implying wikipedia is accurate

[Anonymous No.3745550]

>>3745536
>"Particle/wave" is a horribly ambiguous and arbitrary definition of anything

All the bullshit you spout can be applied to physics or chemitry as well. According to you NOTHING IS SCIENCE. GTFO FAGGOT!

[Anonymous No.3745554]

>>3745544
>They're simply chemicals doing what they do. The vestiges of a period before recognizable life.

Ah, you've set your own trap. What am I, if not a collection of chemicals doing what they do?

[Anonymous No.3745564]

>>3745549
Oh hey, its that slightly out of date guy who teaches some gen ed class and think WIKIPEDIA IS FAKE CUZ ANYWUN CAN EDDIT IT

[Anonymous No.3745565]

>>3745554
herpderp see ->>>3745401. just because you share commonalities with non-life doesn't undercut the definition of life

[Anonymous No.3745562]

>>3745549
>Implying they aren't citing a textbook

So when the biology girls laugh and reject you, does it make you sad? angry? Why don't you just consider dating men (engineering)?

[Anonymous No.3745568]

>>3745550
>he doesn't know how science works

You're right. We don't know anything about reality for certain in any field.

thatsthepoint.jpg

[Anonymous No.3745576]

this argument is pointless. biology is a subset of chemistry, which is a subset of physics, which is a subset of mathematics, which is a subset of logic/philosophy. these titles are just manmade, trivial pedantics.

[Anonymous No.3745582]

>>3745565
So if an 'advanced' life form from another planet coded it's processes with PNA, UNA, or some other exotic chemical, it's not alive?

Point is, it's a poor definition because it's based on total arbitrariness. To a scientist, I guess you could say it is defined for convenience. But really, it's just a word coming from a time when people didn't know what was really happening.

[Anonymous No.3745590]

>>3745582
>if an 'advanced' life form
>if
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Anonymous No.3745607]

>>3745554

>Ah, you've set your own trap. What am I, if not a collection of chemicals doing what they do?

Actually I considered this when I wrote it. While true, that collection of chemicals participating in a specific manner is the definition of life that has been posted. Viruses and other "non-life" can do some but not all of these things.

That very question was at the heart of the controversy on how to define life for a long time.

If you really want to get down to the base of it, those chemicals are just particles interacting in the way that physics says they should.

[Anonymous No.3745612]

>>3745554
>What am I, if not a collection of chemicals doing what they do?

Ah, you've set your own trap. What are chemicals, if not a collection of subatomic particles/waves doing what they do?

Acording to your logic, chemistry isn't science either then, huh dipshit?

[Anonymous No.3745618]

>>3745612
>not keeping up

[Anonymous No.3745624]

>>3745582

>So if an 'advanced' life form from another planet coded it's processes with PNA, UNA, or some other exotic chemical, it's not alive?

Actually, it's usually said that life on Earth uses DNA but the definition can commonly be extended out to nucleotides are used as hereditary material.

You could argue that an alien could use another system of hereditary but then, would we even be able to recognize it as "alive?"

And then you get into what-if? territory and you might as well put your thumb up your butt because you're going to be there for awhile.

[Anonymous No.3745631]

>>3745607
>are just particles interacting in the way that physics says they should.

I'm not arguing with you about that. My entire argument is that biology is a science BECAUSE it is ultimately a derivative of physics (by way of chemistry).

[Anonymous No.3745632]

>>3745624

cool story bro, will do

[Anonymous No.3745640]

>>3745624
>you might as well put your thumb up your butt because you're going to be there for awhile.

Exactly, which is why an arbitrary definition was set for convenience. I was just saying it's arbitrary, and if you take it too seriously, you'll just get yourself in to trouble. Sounds like you know as well as I do that it's not exactly a new idea to say such a thing.

[Anonymous No.3745653]

>>3745631
Also, you aren't me, and I'm not arguing that point at all. ಠ_ಠ

[Anonymous No.3745670]

>>3745640
>Implying all scientific defintions were not arbitrarly set for convience

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED OR JUST REALLY UNDERAGE?

[Anonymous No.3745682]

>>3745640

The definition of life is used as a unit of measure in biology.

The meter and the mole are also arbitrary units used in physics and chemistry because they're convenient for the things we study.

Why is our main unit of measure defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second? Because it was defined in a relevantly convenient form when studying things on Earth before we refined measuring techniques.

[Blackman No.3745696]

I remember my gen bio professor telling us that biology is nothing more than applied chemistry. It wasn't so funny back then

[Anonymous No.3745726]

>>3745696

>Blackman

Holy crap, I use that name for any character I make in games.

Anyways, yeah that's been posted and it is true.

The only reason we have subfields and disciplines is because our mathematics/minds/technology are not advanced enough to describe the systems involved.

A chemical analysis of an organism in a holistic way, would produce processing errors in even the best computer technology available.

A physical analysis of every particle in all of the chemicals of the body, even more so.

[Anonymous No.3746987]

/sci/ - obsessive compulsive disorder

[Anonymous No.3747071]

what is the objective deffinition of hard?

[Anonymous No.3747075]

>>3747071
My cock.