/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5123864]

why do you guys say biology isn't a science? doesn't it make falsifiable predictions about reality?

[Anonymous No.5123884]

Cause there are bullshit non-scientific categorizations of stuff. Thousands of exceptions to every rule and no practical application

[Anonymous No.5123885]

it's just a meme. only high schoolers and freshman actually believe it.

[Anonymous No.5123901]

science
noun/ˈsīəns/
sciences, plural

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Sure sounds like biology would fit into this.
The only ones saying biology isn't a science are faggots on /sci/ that can't deal with the fact that they've done nothing with their lives, and claim to be geniuses despite most likely being of slightly above-average intelligence.

>inb4 i get called a biofag
Electrical engineer, but w/e

[Anonymous No.5123910]

>>5123884
>no practical application

medicine........?

[Anonymous No.5123911]

>>5123910
Hahahahaha I cannot believe someone thinks biology has no practical application.

[Anonymous No.5123917]

Molecular genetics has done more to benefit the human race than the discovery of the higgs boson, or the whole of 21st century astronomy.

Oops, did I just get too real?

[Anonymous No.5123919]

>>5123885
What this person said.

Why you ask, OP?
Wasn't it obvious that it's a meme like Milhouse isn't?

I am curious. Because, if it fails to be obvious to the people here, then this board has failed.

[Anonymous No.5123934]

>>5123917
isn't molecular genetics arguably the application of physics, chemistry and some very basic math to a biological object? where is the "biology" there?

[Anonymous No.5123944]

It is because biology is easy and people look for outside groups to troll.

Also, you and I are probably the only two people on /sci/ to agree that that is the definition of science.

[encephalon !!shxfCFb4+j/ No.5123956]

>>5123944
There are at least three of us, but probably no more.

[Anonymous No.5123964]

>>5123934
I guess this is both a question of personal relation to biology (as with psychology, US Americans have a very specific problem with these two no one else does seem to have.. I will not elaborate on that) and a question of whether or not tying your shoelaces is applied physics.

Biology works on a different level of detail than chemistry does, uses a different resolution, a thing which holds true for all sciences in relation to each other.

How does this relate to molecular genetics?
Molecular genetics *is* biology.

[biofag No.5123966]

>>5123884
excuse me, but i rather enjoy how there are thousands of exceptions to the rules

>>5123934
>the application of physics, chem and some basic math to a biological object is not biology
i think you are confusing animal planet with biology, son

[Anonymous No.5123968]

>>5123884
0/10

[Anonymous No.5123974]

From my understanding its a joke. You would have to be a creationist (retard) to believe it.

[biofag No.5123976]

>>5123944
Newtonian physics is easy
Do you not understand how complex biology is?
>>5123956
>at least four
fixed
good to see you again

[Anonymous No.5123983]

>>5123966
>i think you are confusing animal planet with biology, son

what is it about molecular genetics that you can't non-absurdly reduce to an interplay of other disciplines?

[Anonymous No.5123986]

>>5123976
How's the research into how ribosomes pick up the correct tRNA going?

Last time I was brainstorming with a friend, I came up with the idea that each and every aminoacid having already been added to the chain, changes the relative charge of the units in respect to the tRNA.

How does it look at your end?

[Anonymous No.5123989]

>>5123983
You are obviously a freshman in highschool so i'll hold on the name calling. Biology is just a higher level of abstraction from the other sciences. Physics and chemistry are a huge part of biology. If you try to separate them from biology you obviously have not be around science for very long

[biofag No.5123996]

>>5123983
i dont even know where to start with that comment

the thing about molecular genetics is that that action of molecular biology and thus genetics is physically based on chemistry, however our understanding of chemistry and our computing abilities are too inferior to understand molecular genetics from that route. molecular genetics is more about logic and biochemistry than it is about any of the other sciences

[Anonymous No.5123997]

>>5123934
>isn't molecular genetics arguably the application of physics, chemistry and some very basic math to a biological object? where is the "biology" there?
Not at all. Genetics has very little to do with physics or chemistry and while molecular biology uses some chemistry, that's only to the extent of "what's the concentration" and "is it phosphorylated or not".

Biochemistry is what you're thinking of, and that's usually lumped in with chemistry departments, because they're basically chemists who are interested in classes of compounds that happen to be biological.

[Anonymous No.5124036]

>>5123986
not me. i did cytoskeleton control and transcription factors for organ development for a bit.

applying for grad schools atm - hopefully NC triangle. i want to manufacture vaccines and stuff - seem fun.

[Anonymous No.5124051]

>>5123956
>>5123976
Ok this is where I lose people. Astrology is a science, because it makes (really shitty) testable predictions.

[Anonymous No.5124101]

>>5124051
okay, maybe we need to extend the definition a little.
science is the body of falsifiable claims about reality that have not yet been falsified.

[Anonymous No.5124141]

>>5123884
The reason there's a thousand exceptions to the rules is because the rules are shit. If the rules are shit that means there's still a wealth of untapped understanding in the biology field.

Have fun scribbling out equations and dying before you find one that works.

Also,

>no practical application
>my face

[Anonymous No.5124147]

>>5124141
enjoy the ban ;)

[Anonymous No.5124150]

>>5124051
>>5124101
>>5124051
>>5124101
i would say science must involve hypothesizing, testing, and interpreting results among other things

[Anonymous No.5124155]

>>5124150
Which biology does.

[Anonymous No.5124160]

>>5124101
What is the need? If one studies Astrology, compares its predictions to experimental tests, and publishes their result, are they not a scientist of astrology? Of course they are. As long as someone is making or testing falsifiable experiments, they are a scientist.

[Anonymous No.5124172]

>>5124141
>infantile cartoon

[Anonymous No.5124183]

I legitimately dislike the biology classes my university makes students take as part of chemistry. Memorization is emphasized and very little of it is intuitive, if you know a few rules and patterns in organic chemistry, and you can pick them out, you're successful, same trend in maths but with numbers instead of molecules, but biology classes are just a big clisterfuck of "here, memorize all this shit that has little to do with eachother, by the way, we name things based on Jack shit, because our researchers were glory hounds"

[Anonymous No.5124201]

>"biology is not empirical"
>mfw taking biomathematics II

[Anonymous No.5124207]

>>5124183
In most biology classes, sadly this is true.

There are some, like cell biology, where you still have to memorize, but there is a lot more logic and pattern recognition involved.

I have to admit this is a shitty major though; kind of regret choosing it. Oh well, at least I can always apply to dental school.

[Anonymous No.5124225]

>>5123864
Can't tell if troll or not.
Also, the people who imply/say biology isn't a science are trolls.

[Anonymous No.5124237]

>>5124201
>thinking mathematics is empirical
>thinking biomathematics isn't applied math and not biology

[Anonymous No.5124259]

>>5124237
>>thinking biomathematics isn't applied math and not biology
well, which is it? you've got two negatives there champ

[Anonymous No.5124278]

>mfw biochemistry
>mfw I can be in any of like 12 different grad programs at any given school
>mfw jobs

[Anonymous No.5124284]

>>5124278
>mfw brain damage from lab solvents
>mfw slowly feeling my soul evaporate as my frontal lobes vacuolize
>mfw occupational lung cancer rate comparable to smoking 2 packs a day

[Anonymous No.5124301]

>>5124284
>the face when fume hoods and respirators

[Anonymous No.5124311]

High School, potential BioSoftScienceBabby here.
semi-related question:
How much do biofags in research(specifically in medical or neuroscience) typically make? Also, is it common for research to overlap in other research fields such as AI, robotics, etc.?

[Anonymous No.5124314]

>>5124311
>interested in salaries
Don't waste a professors time, research is for scientists, go to Med school or some other money-hungry bullshit, research doesn't generally pay well, you should be happy because you love it.

[Anonymous No.5124321]

Biology is as much as a science as Chemistry is. So it's pretty much whether you wan to memorize molecules for four years or memorize tree organs.

[Anonymous No.5124323]

>>5124314
I was only interested in knowing if the salaries were enough to maintain a semi-comfortable lifestyle/ support a small nuclear family unit.

sorry if I came off as some sort of money-grubbing cunt.

[Anonymous No.5124325]

>>5124321
Would Biochem study both equally or is it more of Chemistry which a biological edge?

[Anonymous No.5124330]

>>5124325
In my experience, the latter.

[Anonymous No.5124335]

>>5124325

You know organic chemistry? Biochemistry is everything bad about that, plus extra bad stuff.

If you happen to like organic chemistry, biochemistry is awesome.

Personally, I love it. I'm also in neuroscience, so for me, it's mostly a drugs thing.

[Anonymous No.5124346]

>>5124335
Are you an Undergrad? What kind of classes does a Neuro major entail? Would I be better of just Doing a bio undergrad and going to grad school for neuro?

[Anonymous No.5124361]

>>5124346
Not him, but I started off neuro and fell in love with chemistry
I can tell you Bio is likely not what you think it will be, it's mostly memorizing random things, you will get exams where you look at a picture of an organism and have to specify what clade/phylum/etc it falls under

>>5124323
It varies, corporate R&D departments can sometimes be high, most university positions aren't that great but the research is really rewarding, if you're fucking awesome Nobel Prize money is around $1M but it gets split among your team.
I dunno any specifics, I do research for free since I'm an undergrad, I know lots of graduate programs are actually covered by the university and you get paid a stipend.

[Anonymous No.5124373]

>>5124346

I'm pretty much the same as this guy: >>5124361

But I personally stayed with neuroscience, and added on biochemistry. I know a few other people who did that. Basically, we got around to learning about neurotransmitters in detail and that got a lot of us interested in organic chemistry.

Neuroscience typically involves a lot of memorization, and in that way it is similar to biology. However, if you're interested in neuroscience, do neuroscience. Biology is a fascinating science and a useful major, but only if you're the kind of person that can deal with it. You will be forced to learn about things that you do not care about at all, and that may be draining to you. Thus, my approach (neuro + biochem) was sort of an elimination of what I didn't like about biology and an enhancement of what I did like: chemistry and neuroscience.

I'm also personally extremely interested in drug functionality and manufacturing. That gets a lot of people looking at biochemistry/chemistry (it doesn't have to be biochem specifically, chemistry would be great).

[Anonymous No.5124377]

>>5124361
>memorizing random things
i dont know if it was the school i went to but after freshman or sophomore year it isnt really about memorization. Sure you learn more types of pathways but it turns almost philosophical when you learn what is molecularly possible or not.

[Anonymous No.5124381]

>>5123976
haha no
3 body problem is non calculable

[Anonymous No.5124382]

>>5124373
I am really interested in manufacturing and have been for years - but I didnt take neurology or pharmacology, mainly cellular/molecular bio.
will the next gen of drugs need manufacturing as a metabolic product, what some call biomanufacturing? or will it still be complex synthetic chemistry?

[Anonymous No.5124384]

>>5123996
no, folding@home

[Anonymous No.5124385]

>>5124377
If you're talking about biology, I'm a chemistry major, after the intro biology courses I quit taking biology altogether, but my intro Bio courses are the same as those required of Bio majors.
I will say a girl in a gen chem lab said she loved Bio and hated chem, but she also had AP credit for both general Bio courses. The general Bio classes I've had to take leave a bad taste in my mouth so to speak.

[Anonymous No.5124387]

>>5124385
yea they should teach that stuff in 5th grade if you ask me

[Anonymous No.5124394]

>>5124361
Is it common for Neuro/bio researchers to collaborate with other fields such as AI and Robotics. I'm just wondering since I have a passive interest with AI, bitotech, etc.

[Anonymous No.5124396]

>>5124382

No one really knows what a "next-gen" drug will look like. That's the problem. We don't quite understand exactly how drugs like methamphetamine work (aside from the basic agonistic function of meth). We don't even understand how our body's natural drugs work well enough yet. My guess is that some next-gen drugs will be manufactured through biosynthesis, while others will continue to be made through synthetic chemistry.

Much of the time what drives this innovation is the market. If biosynthesis yields cheaper drugs that can do the jobs of old drugs better, then private funding for research into similar methods will increase as other companies try to compete. It isn't likely, however, that a company would dump money into trying to create a brand-new drug through biosynthesis. That's too much of a crapshoot. A lot of drug innovation is redoing old drugs in better ways, or mildly tweaking the effects of an existing drug through chemical synthesis (ex: dextroamphetamine (Adderall) and Methamphetamine work very similarly, but dextro is considered to slightly less harmful).

I'm using methamphetamine as an example a lot because I'm an RA in a lab that studies meth right now. Inb4 Breaking Bad shit.

[Anonymous No.5124402]

>>5124394

How interesting that you would ask that!

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18721658

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/science/bodies-inert-they-moved-a-robot-with-their-minds.html?_r=0

It's actually a rapidly growing field.

[Anonymous No.5124501]

>>5124402
Thanks for linking those articles anon! Interesting stuff. It serves as more fuel to the fire of inspiration.

[Anonymous No.5124511]

>>5123934
Isn't basketball arguably the application of physics and some very basic math to a bouncy rubber sphere? where is the "basketball" there?

[Anonymous No.5124584]

young bio major here.

Thinking of going into bacteriology; just recently started getting interested. I had babby's first Gram stain and I'm already hooked. I thought I was more interested in eukaryotes before.

Any good career options? It would be cool to get somewhere like the CDC after some time.

When did you start talking t professors about research at your university?

I've already met with a professor a few times and discussed some developmental biology and the research going around on campus, he seemed happy to see that a freshman was interested, even if I can't participate in much right now.

[Anonymous No.5124607]

>>5123910
implying good medicine is about science and not about trial/error

[Anonymous No.5124614]

>>5124607
Science is trial and error you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.5124613]

yes, also theology. why would anyone argue that the real nature of reality is not science?

[Anonymous No.5124620]

Can we agree that biology just really needs stats to be significant?

[Anonymous No.5124641]

>>5123864
>doesn't it make falsifiable predictions about reality?

If that's all we need to justify calling something a science, then astrology is officially a science now.

[Anonymous No.5124652]

>>5124641
Well, its predictions aren't just falsifiable, they're false.

[Anonymous No.5124656]

>>5123864
>why do you guys say biology isn't a science?
We do not say that.
It obviously is a science.
Perhaps just one troll on this board has said that, but certainly not the whole board.

[Anonymous No.5124756]

>>5124641
It is a science. It's a false science. We've demonstrated that it's false. The science of astrology is "it doesn't work dudes".

[Anonymous No.5124853]

>>5123864
Didn't read the whole thread, but I believe this is relevant:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328

>confirmed my notion about research biology labs

[Anonymous No.5124926]

>>5124853
You should have read the thread just as much as you should refrain from confounding your own perception by way of confirmation bias.

[Anonymous No.5124941]

Perhaps many people dislike biology because of how it is taught in their curriculum, with a big emphasis on memorizing, instead of active thinking. It would then not be much different from the people who discredit maths because all they had to do with maths was was some high school class in which one only had to remember a set of rules. And we all know how fucking stupid it is to judge mathematics from that standpoint.

[Anonymous No.5124958]

Nobody says it's not a science. They say it's not a hard science, because it's on the border between exact science and soft science.

[Anonymous No.5125201]

>>5124620
Biology has stats. It has a whole field of stats dedicated to it, and ecology uses some pretty advanced statistics.

[Anonymous No.5125229]

Being the study of life, I find biology to actually be the most relevant science to me. As I am, you know, alive.
Also studying bio means you get to have fun and be outdoorsy and people like you

[Anonymous No.5125275]

The ONLY people who go into hard/soft sciences are the ones that got Weeded Out of professional practice schools. i.e. medical dental pharm school potentials that couldn't cut it, graduated below a 3.5, and decided to be a scientist.

You know it to be true.

Competing over who has the fullest cup in a sea of failure.