[ 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: 11 KB, 180x180, costanza_13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884566 No.3884566 [Reply] [Original]

>biology
>a hard science

>> No.3884575

>hard science

>> No.3884590

>biology
>a soft science

chose both options.

>> No.3884593

>science

>> No.3884591

>science
>hard
pick one

>> No.3884594

>>3884591

>implying you're not a high school student

>> No.3884597

>hard

>> No.3884598

>biology

>> No.3884600

> a

>> No.3884602

>OP's dick
>hard

choose one

>> No.3884609

>>3884602

>you
>mad

choose both

>> No.3884631

biology is for stupid people.

>> No.3884640

biology is for people too stupid for science and too straight for engineering

>> No.3884648

>molecular biology and genetics
>not a hard science

wat

>> No.3884655

ITT: People who haven't done anything more in biology than memorise the nitrogen cycle


lol@high school fags

>> No.3884657

>>3884640

couldn't do engineering even if they wanted to, there's way too much maths.

anything more than basic arithmetic and percentages gets biologists in a flounder

>> No.3884658

>>3884648
>molecular biology and genetics
>not just memorization

>> No.3884664

>>3884657
>genetic engineering
>not engineering

what

>> No.3884668

>>3884658
no,its the same process of discovery as they do at CERN

>> No.3884671

>>3884664

I don't really consider it engineering, just like I don't really consider jumping up and down physics.

>> No.3884686

>>3884668
Nope. Theoretical physicists first make a serious mathematical theory and then think of an experiment to test it.
Biochem is memorization and application of a large repertoire of possible experiments, mostly trial and error.

>> No.3884710
File: 25 KB, 249x250, 1309110649426.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884710

>This thread
>For the 50th time

>> No.3884706

>>3884686
How did they come up with the experiments in the first place? Prediction and theory. the fact that they have a large repository is just evidence that biology is a science that WORKS BEST.

physics fails.
lee_smolin_the_trouble_with_physics.jpg

>> No.3884711

>>3884706
>implying most of the experiments weren't designed by physicists and chemists

>> No.3884715

>>3884706

>physics fails

you wouldn't be on a computer without physics. please, never talk again because you're bound to embarrass yourself.

little baby.

>> No.3884722

>>3884710
>50th

Moar like 1000th. You're not often on /sci/, are you?

>> No.3884730

>>3884715
You or your family wouldn't be alive this moment without medicine. please, never talk again because you're bound to embarrass yourself.

little baby.

>> No.3884732
File: 25 KB, 553x484, 1316600016851.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884732

>>3884722

Can't say I am too busy watching re-runs of the greatest show ever made

Pic related

>> No.3884737

>>3884730
medicine =/= biology

If troll, try harder.
If stupid, educate yourself.

>> No.3884738

>>3884730

I'm pretty sure we would. You do know that people were around before modern medicine, right?

Don't, ever, talk again.

>> No.3884748

>>3884738
many more also died. by all probability you would have been among them

>>3884737

wtf am i reading

>>3884715

regardless, the point was that all sciences have unscientific aspects. humans do science and humans are fallible. therefore science is fallible. Simples.

>> No.3884751

>>3884749
>I honestly don't get why /sci/ doesn't think biology is a real science.

It's a troll

>> No.3884749

>>3884737
effective medicine wouldn't be here without biology. However, you are right that medicine =/= biology.

>>3884738
Your mother would probably be dead due to childbirth. I exaggerated a bit there, but you see my point.

I honestly don't get why /sci/ doesn't think biology is a real science. Sure, chem and physics are more math based, but you guys honestly think it's all bullshit that is being spit out

>> No.3884756

>>3884748

more people have always lived than died. therefore, your argument is invalid.

>> No.3884757

>>3884749

>I exaggerated a bit there

Is that what biologists say when they are wrong?

>> No.3884761

>>3884751
I know but it's get my mad anyway.
But what the hell, I'm too good at getting trolled.

>>3884757
I wasn't wrong. Much more people in his family(or any other family, for that matter) would be dead. I exaggerated for the sake showing how the point that this anon stated.
>>3884748


Also I'm not a biologist anyway.

>> No.3884763

>>3884761

You were wrong actually.

But nobody's wrong in biology, is that it? Everyone's a winner?

>> No.3884764

biology is a science by definition of the world science. deal with it. if you want to invent your own definition that's fine but it's not how language operates and biology would only be considered by you and other who share your definition (ie. morons and trolls on /sci/)

>> No.3884769

>>3884764
OP didn't question biology being a science. He said it's not hard.

>> No.3884770

>>3884764

>hard science =/= science

>> No.3884771

>>3884763
>But nobody's wrong in biology, is that it? Everyone's a winner?


obvious conclusion detached from the premise is obvious

>> No.3884773
File: 40 KB, 461x403, 1313255762650.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884773

>Aliens
>A hard science

>> No.3884774

>>3884771

So you accept you were wrong or would you prefer to live in a fantastic fantasy land where everything you say is right?

>> No.3884776

>>3884774
you are talking to a different person and what you are saying doesnt make sense in the context of this discussion

>> No.3884775

>>3884757
Also note that I exagerated due the fact that I presented the 'you would be dead' matter as a fact, where in reality it only would be a chance.

>>3884763
How am I wrong? I simply told that if it wasn't for biology/medicine that he or his family might very well be dead.

>>3884774
that is not me

>> No.3884780

>>3884774
you are talking to a different person and what you are saying doesnt make sense in the context of this discussion


anyone who thinks biology isnt a hard science has never been made aware of palaeontology

>> No.3884783
File: 39 KB, 469x428, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884783

>implying trolling isn't the hardest science

>> No.3884778

>>3884775
>that is not me
I linked the wrong person.

>> No.3884779

>>3884775

A chance less than 50%, so why bring it up, unless to say "you would probably not be dead"?

>> No.3884784

>>3884779
Because less that 50% (possibly a number that you pulled out of your ass) is still damn significant.

>> No.3884785
File: 921 KB, 240x240, 1292102239519.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884785

This thread. Again?

I will study biology to spite you now!

AND PONIES

>:D

>> No.3884786

> Start Bachelor in biology
> First year is literally nothing but maths, physics and chemistry
> Depending on further choices you'll have maths, physics and chemistry until graduation
> MFW I can master in biology, biochemistry, biotech, biomed, molecular and cellular physics, molecular biology, geology, geography, bio-engineering and nanotechnology
> I can even get a master in physics, chemistry or astronomy, after a single semester of supplementary classes.

>> No.3884789

>>3884779
without any medical intervetion, a lot more than half offspring die. why the fuck do you think animals have such huge litters??

>> No.3884792

>>3884786
>that's what biologists actually believe

Protip: algebra is not hard math

>> No.3884794

>>3884791
poorer humans are, the more children they have

>> No.3884791

>>3884789

prove that that is the case for humans or gtfo

you're wrong, btw

>> No.3884796

>>3884792
still math.

when we talk about hard in this context we dont mean difficult. you are extremely ignorant

>> No.3884800

>>3884796

just like english literature degrees have maths in them because you have to remember which page you were up to?

>> No.3884802

>>3884794

that's not proving anything

>> No.3884803

>>3884800
no.

What a silly example

>> No.3884807

>>3884803

still math.

when we talk about hard in this context we dont mean difficult. you are extremely ignorant

>> No.3884809

>>3884796
Since all math is rigorous, "hard" in the context of math always means difficult.

You don't seem to know anything about math. Maybe that's because you're a biologist.

>> No.3884811

The debate should even be between hard and soft sciences it should be between useful inferences and intellectual wankery. All sciences and studies have both. Focus on rooting the sshit out of your own discipline before criticising and comparing another.

>> No.3884812

>>3884792

Notice that maths isn't one of the masters listed. As a biologist you need about a year of extra classes for that

>> No.3884814

>>3884811

"f-focus on rooting the sshit out o-of y-your own discipline"

>> No.3884815

>>3884809
Difficulty is an entirely different subject.

>> No.3884820

>>3884814
oh no a typo. suicide is my only option to rectify this grave error
that comment confirms you are a troll

>> No.3884822

>>3884815
FTFY:
Difficulty is something biologists cannot talk about, because they are too stupid.

>> No.3884824

>2011

>> No.3884825

>>3884820

Sorry, I just suspect you are a bumbling moron in real life, just like you are online.

>> No.3884826
File: 105 KB, 747x561, oh look it's this thread again.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884826

>> No.3884828

>>3884822
Just no, mate, just, no.


The greatest form of intellectual wankery is the discussion that goes on ITT and it's perpetuated more by physicists and mathematicians than biologists.

>> No.3884831

>>3884825
I like how you really took issue with what I siad instead of just insulting me. That was really well done.

>> No.3884832

>>3884828
>proving my point

>> No.3884834

>>3884832
Explain how. Oh wait you can't.

>> No.3884836

>>3884831

There's a lot less shit in my discipline than yours. How's that, Mr. Shitty?

>> No.3884838

>>3884836
You don't even know my discipline. LOL

>> No.3884841

>>3884838

But it's probably not mine. So I can make my comment with a good degree of confidence.

>> No.3884843

>>3884836
whatever discipline you are in, i hope it doesnt involve this kind of speculating without any shred of evidence. because that would make it shitty. In fact, the probably makes the discipline shitty just be sheer misfortune of having you in it

>> No.3884849

>>3884843

You just proved my point, silly child.

>> No.3884857

>>3884849
Again explain how. oh wait you still can't. Why do we keep going through this? Oh yeah, because you're an idiot.

>> No.3884893

>>3884857

Again? the last time wasn't me dumb child