/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4966586]

Hey /sci/

Why do you consider biology a soft-science? Because of the lack of mathematics?

Im starting my biomedicine study soon. Bio-thread!

[Anonymous No.4966612]

Because it preoccupies itself with memorization of vocabulary terms instead of actual science. Seriously, what value is there in naming each and every bone in the human body when you could instead use a generalized naming schema.

[Anonymous No.4966615]

>Actual science.

You have to define the above term, otherwise the debate is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.4966617]

>>4966612
That's not the definition of Biology.

[Anonymous No.4966622]

>>4966615
all physical sciences sans biology.

[Anonymous No.4966625]

So it isn't a science if it doesn't involve mathematics?

[Anonymous No.4966626]

>>4966612

That's actually pretty well put, brah!

[Anonymous No.4966636]

>>4966625
A soft science, son.

>>4966612
There are experiments in biology aswell? It not just memorizing names and terms.

[Anonymous No.4966640]

>>4966636
>A Soft science

Why exactly is that?

[Anonymous No.4966642]

turing's morphogenesis

/thread

[Anonymous No.4966651]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science
I'm not going to quote anything from this article because it's perfectly well short enough for you to read the whole damn thing.
People on /sci/ are mostly idiots and/or trolls, hence this terrible conception that biology would be a soft science.

[Anonymous No.4966654]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

The discoveries of biology are easily and mathematically (statistically) verifiable, and are as concrete as any in chemistry or physics, if not more so.

>>4966612

There is a generalized naming schema for most different kinds of biologically significant organic molecules, as well as all organisms. You must know literally nothing about biology.

The general field of biology also involves more experimentation and empirical observation than either of the general fields of chemistry or physics, because biology is by far the fastest-growing and advancing science, and it has by far the largest number of distinct and legitimate (meaning they require meaningful and extensive study in the given field) specializations.

[Anonymous No.4966655]

>>4966651
why are biologist so defensive when their field is called a soft science? at least psychologist have humility.

[Anonymous No.4966657]

>>4966655

Psychology is a soft science, though. It's a social science.

[Anonymous No.4966658]

>>4966654
>The general field of biology also involves more experimentation and empirical observation than either of the general fields of chemistry or physics
hey, come on. I know they're trolls, but let's not get carried away.

[Anonymous No.4966661]

>>4966658

It's the biggest, fastest-growing field with the highest rate of new discovery.

[Anonymous No.4966698]

Biologists do field studies so they can find ways to prevent diseases, environmental research, and even find ways to prevent diseases. So if biology is that important, it shouldn't be considered a soft science.

[Anonymous No.4966709]

>>4966657
that's my point..they gladly take the title. I've never seen a psychologist come to /sci/ buttmad that his field is called a soft science. shame i can't say that for biologist.

[Anonymous No.4966712]

>>4966661
>>4966698
you guys clearly have no idea what a hard or soft science is...

[Anonymous No.4966713]

>>4966698

I'd like to agree with you, but you would be surprised how important social sciences like psychology and sociology can be. Psychologists do everything from arranging cockpits to be usable by pilots to ensuring that our legal system prosecutes people susceptible to mental illness fairly, not to mention helping our law enforcement officers find criminals. Sociologists are the brains behind a lot of the movement in society, from government actions and movements to corporate ones. Without them, our government systems and services would appear quite hostile to the people that they served.

I am of course aware that both are soft sciences, before anyone rushes into this discussion to start flinging shit around.

[Anonymous No.4966715]

>>4966712

Biology is a hard science because it is empirically and mathematically verifiable. This is of course going by the common definitions.

[Anonymous No.4966727]

>>4966715
no, it is a soft science because it is based largely on interpretation, as psychology is. This is why creationist constantly hand you your asses.

[Anonymous No.4966733]

>>4966709

But Psychology is by definition a soft science. Calling Biology a soft science is the equivalent of calling Psychology a hard science.

[Anonymous No.4966742]

>>4966727

What part of any field of biology is based on interpretation, or at least any more so than chemistry or physics? I'll stop you before you bring up evolution, because as you obviously know, Darwin's evolution was of course factually inaccurate, and it has thus been modified over time, so that in modern times there is no evidence opposing evolution as we understand it now.

You must not know statistics, son. It's how we verify facts that aren't based simply around babby-tier formulas. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4966745]

>>4966733
>Calling Biology a soft science is the equivalent of calling Psychology a hard science
no, no it's not....

[Anonymous No.4966752]

>>4966709
They gladly take the title because it is by definition a social science, ergo a soft science. Biology on the other hand is a natural science, which makes it a hard science. It may not be as "pure" as physics or chemistry, because it relies on knowledge of said fields, but you could argue just the same about geology or astronomy.

[Anonymous No.4966766]

>>4966752
This. So much this.

[Anonymous No.4966768]

>>4966742
no, you won't stop me before i bring it up. Obviously I'm dont "not" believe in evolution, but i know a lot of the evidence is based on interpretation. The fossil record is the most often cited (though i admit most knowledgeable on the subject agree is the poorest) evidence for evolution is completely based on interpretation. Is morphology any better? is the study of evolutionary reason for certain traits? what about ethology?
>>4966752
it's not called a soft science because it is not "pure". it is called a soft science because of how conclusions are drawn.

[Anonymous No.4966776]

>>4966768
Conclusions in biology are drawn on behalf of results shown by experiments built up after the scientific method.
If that is not how conclusions are drawn in a hard science, i don't know what a hard science is.

[Anonymous No.4966780]

>>4966776
>Conclusions in biology are drawn on behalf of results shown by experiments built up after the scientific method
and they're not in psychology?

[Anonymous No.4966793]

>>4966780
They're not always. As mentioned before it's a social study, and in social studies conclusions are also drawn from the study of the human mind. Thoughts and patterns of how a human acts are not something you can measure. In biology you can measure the changes of the experiment. That is why I would characterize biology as a hard science like physics and chemistry, even though it is not as "pure", as Anon mentioned before.

[Anonymous No.4966799]

>>4966768

I'm sure you are aware of this already, but I feel as if your understanding of the matter might be slipping: all science involves extensive interpretation. The interpretation of data collected from experimentation is a fundamental part of the scientific method. Physics and chemistry both utilize the same amount of interpretation, proportionally (we are not, of course, accounting for the relative size of each field), as biology.

As far as fossils are concerned, you appear to believe that once a single piece of fossil evidence is found, it is interpreted and used to establish a fact or theory. This is not true. Like most sciences, evolutionary biology depends on mathematical data to support assertions. The reason that a given theory stands in evolution is that there is sufficient statistical data to support the theory.

Here is an example, in a different field, but based on similar principles:

A biologist studying termites might introduce some chemical into a habitat of termites and observe their reactions. If the biologist observes some great change in this study, he or she cannot simply declare a hypothesis as being "supported." Many, many more experiments must be conducted and statistically derived numbers must be crunched and peers must be consulted with in order for this biologist's assertions to be verified. Biology involves a modified form of experimentation, wherein most experiments must be conducted on a larger scale and with great complexity and rigor in the experiments to ensure accuracy, because biological systems are by far the most complicated that we know of, and thus any factor can theoretically effect change. This is in contrast to physics and chemistry.

[Anonymous No.4966812]

>>4966799
Agreed.
However, i didn't quite understand if you would consider it a hard science?

[Anonymous No.4966813]

>>4966793

To be completely fair, psychology is supposed to be completely verifiable through statistics as well, though it is still a soft science because of its social nature. However, there is admittedly a lot of fraud in psychology. Any reputable discovery in psychology is verified through extensive experimentation (repeated ad nauseum and on a large scale) and statistical evidence, though. It just happens that some well-established people have used their influence to mask their fraud, because psychology is susceptible to such things. You can easily expose fraud, however, as one psychologist has recently proven, through the use of statistics alone.

You must be thinking of Freud and his ilk, the assertions of whom have been widely challenged and debunked. You can no longer get away with making wild assumptions. It is still, however, a soft science, because it is social.

[Anonymous No.4966818]

>>4966793
they both have empirical backing, otherwise neither would be science at all. There ARE measurable variables in psychology. Doesn't make it a hard science. same for biology.
>>4966799
> all science involves extensive interpretation
all of it involves interpretation of some kind, "hard" and "soft" just describe the degree.
> The reason that a given theory stands in evolution is that there is sufficient statistical data to support the theory
statistics are themselves, open to interpretation. much of psychology's backing comes from statistics.
> If the biologist observes some great change in this study, he or she cannot simply declare a hypothesis as being "supported."
you mean like the colored moth evolution thing? yea, that didn't happen at all

[Anonymous No.4966829]

>>4966813
I see what you mean, and I agree.
But in my opinion, even though you can back something up with statistical evidence, there is still a uncertainty, because it's not something you can measure on. But hey, Im no psychologist, i may be in an area where i'm not all sure!
The discussion shouldn't actually be about psychology, but about biology.

[Anonymous No.4966830]

>>4966812

It is a hard science. I will list the reasons.

1. It makes extensive use of the scientific method on a large scale with rigorous detail involved in experimentation and peer review.
2. It is a natural science, and thus by most definitions a hard science.
3. It is mathematically (statistically) verifiable.
4. It is non-social (see #2); the only social aspects of biology are incidental, as scientists sometimes seek to locate genetic reasons for behaviors and social nature. Genetic matters are easily verified (see #1, #3).

[Anonymous No.4966832]

I don't understand the argument really. I still have two semesters left for my degree in aquatic biology, and not only have I had to study two semesters of Calculus, 4 semesters of Chemistry, and 2 semesters of physics, but also, I have had to incorporate all three into my core BIO courses. Fluid dynamics and organic chemistry are probably the most important from physics and chem, and I also use simple derivatives from calc 1 to explain trends in graphs. Maybe the people that consider it a "soft" science are doing so in the context that you can't get by with specializing in only one thing.

[Anonymous No.4966848]

>>4966829

>even though you can back something up with statistical evidence, there is still a uncertainty

Oh, is that why physics is a soft science? I was wondering.

>>4966818

>all of it involves interpretation of some kind, "hard" and "soft" just describe the degree.

Biology involves no more interpretation of data, by any definition, than chemistry or physics. Take a biology class if you want to see what I mean.

>statistics are themselves, open to interpretation. much of psychology's backing comes from statistics.

All data in any field or study is subject to interpretation. Here is what a process without interpretation looks like:

Physicist observes occurrence, physicist records data. Data is stored in a computer and never looked at again or viewed as evidence to prove anything.

>you mean like the colored moth evolution thing? yea, that didn't happen at all

Do you understand that they were, and still are, for that matter, studying the ENTIRE population of peppered moths? You don't even know of any other studies that big. There is no lightly-stated assertion there. All currently accepted assertions around that study are easily verified empirically.

[encephalon !!shxfCFb4+j/ No.4966854]

Firstly OP, /sci/ is not a population of people whose definition of science is consistent or even explicit.

Most biology uses the scientific method. However, biology, like *any* science, is a field in which not all questions are created equally. Some fields of biology are entirely mathematically rigorous (biophysics and structural biology, pharmacology, etc), whereas other fields are not so.

There is still influential mathematical work in Biology in all fields. The work of William Bialek at Princeton and Xiao-Jing Wang at Yale are two profound examples of researchers who applied mathematics to make precise predictions about the actual parameters of biological systems, and the 'breaking points' of the same systems.

tl;dr anyone who tells you that there is no mathematics in biology is likely basing their judgement on the content of undergrad classes, and is clearly not familiar with the literature.

[Anonymous No.4966869]

I'm the guy making the majority of the longer posts in this thread. I want to put forward an idea that I have been toying with as an interlude to this discussion:

The purity of a field should not be taken as a measure of general knowledge. The fact that physics is more pure than chemistry does not make physics any more rigorous. All that means is that you are required to know less about science in general. Chemists must know some biology and physics, on top of their own field. Biologists must know quite a bit of chemistry and some physics. Neuroscientists must know biology, chemistry and physics. Psychologists must know neuroscience, biology, chemistry, and some physics. And so on.

Physicists, however, must know some chemistry.

This is why rankings based on "purity" are faulty. Physics is an honorable and extremely difficult pursuit, but by and large physicists prove to be poor debaters in the other fields of science, because they are required to know very little about the world around them other than what pertains to their degree. So let's not start making vast sweeping generalizations about fields that we are never even expected to know anything about.

[Flibble !Prb3WfhoI6 No.4966904]

Physics and chemistry can only be hard sciences, because there are no margins of error, or more maybe accurately there are margins of error but they are so slim you can't skew them to fit a preconceived notion.

Economics and history on the other hand have large margins of error, loose correlations in their statistics or multiplie justified ways of interpreting different sources and difficulty in quantifying the possibility of a theory.

If yuo were to take an upstanding physicist utterly dedicated to finding the truth and train him to become an objective historian and he were to make some big discovery, he would be no more famous and succesful than the guys who make "ancient aliens" documentaries for the history channel. The reputation of fields like sociology and political science are even worse for obvious reasons.

Biology is like these inaccurate sciences because it deals with uncertainty, however it is far less corrupt, whackos pushing alternative medicine and snake oil are not accepted by the peer reviewed scientific community. Essentially biology shows economists and psychologists how science should approach uncertainty and unless you want to split hairs it is a hard science.

[Anonymous No.4967047]

OP. Please see pic for answer.