[ 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: 36 KB, 802x497, Fibonacci.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6962782 No.6962782 [Reply] [Original]

>son comes back from school
>"dad is it true that biology is the most important type science"
>why so?
>"our biology teacher told us that it is because without biology there wouldn't be life and people to invent other types of science"

Should I move my son to a different school?

>> No.6962787

Just sign the teacher up for gay men magazines and such.

>> No.6962795

>>6962782

if biology is made of rocks, isn't geology the most important type of science?

>> No.6962809

Without biology your son would have a lifespan of 30.

>> No.6962821

>>6962809
People normally lived to 60-70 in olden times too. The reason the average lifespan was so low was infant mortality.

>> No.6962831

at least he isn't an engineer

>> No.6962846

>>6962782
i dont come to this board that often because its not really /sci/, its more like /math/ or /lolmydegreeisbettadenurs/ but i swear everytime i come here some people are shitting on biology. is it because all of you engineering/math nerds cant into it? does biology remind you of life, nature, the out doors, things you cant relate to? i would say the understanding of life and living organisms is pretty fucking important, more so than your math and engineering.

>> No.6962847

>>6962782
Cosmology is the most important science. Without it there would be no universe.

>> No.6963006

>>6962846
I'm a math major who took molecular biology this past semester. I got an A in the class, but I hated every minute of it. For me, it was the lack of theory and just hand-wavy-ness of how things work in the body. We really don't understand all of what goes on. Not for me.

>> No.6963018

>>6963006
if you want to really understand why dont you study biology and help us find out?

>> No.6963390

>>6963006
> just hand-wavy-ness of how things work in the body

What kind of shit course did you take?

>> No.6963401

>>6963006
This is true. If you study math, you realise what it means to understand.

>> No.6963406

Tell your son that no single field of science is the most important one. Science isn't a competition, it's a collaboration. All fields of science contribute to our understanding of the world as we can observe it, just at different levels of study.

>> No.6963408

>>6963006
But you can't, at this point in history, reduce all things to mathetmatical laws. That doesn't mean people who try to study those things are less scientific. They just have to rely more on empirical evidence, which is obviously more difficult to prove theories for. Same with social sciences. They're even more difficult to reduce to hard, mathematical laws.

I think what makes them legitimate, though, is that it IS theoretically possible to reduce them to that. But it's not currently possible. It may never be possible to do it. But looking down on people who try to understand things using the scientific method is bullshit.

>> No.6963409

>>6962846

At least in italy biology is also known as "I tried to got into med school but they didn't take me", so I guess that's why

>> No.6963431

>>6963406
The only right answer in this thread.

>> No.6963438

>>6963406
thor doth say thee this, 10000 times do I say thee this

>> No.6963648

>>6963390
>hand-wavy-ness of how things work
I second this. Just curious. I want to know!

>> No.6963662

I can't find the famous quote, but it was something like this: To advande science in one area, is advancing the science everywhere. (bad english, sorry)

>> No.6963667

>>6963408
The problem with those field is that they don't even try to systemize their knowledge towards a unifying theory. All they try is to find isolated interesting facts, publish something on it and go somewhere else, never to be integrated into a deeper understanding of life.

>> No.6963708

Memorization of facts without any underlying theory is not beneficial to problem solving.
But it does create better doctors.

>> No.6963721

>>6963667
Who the fuck needs a unified theory of biology?

>> No.6963737

> used to think that biology stinks
> decide look into it with an open mind
> realize that everything does make sense in biology, there aren't pointless things

I dont understand why people on /sci/ of all boards hate a science that isn't even bad.

>> No.6963784

>>6963737
/sci/ hates hand wavaving. tell us facts, we'll follow!

>> No.6963788

>>6963406
This. Even as someone in my third year of Biology.

>> No.6963792

>>6963784
Give an example of handwaving.

>> No.6963794

>>6962846
OP's point is not about biology, but about the teacher telling complete shit to children that believe it.

It's all about the argument given by the teacher, so shut your whore mouth and think for a minute before spouting shit like this

>> No.6963837

>>6962782

No, biologists are just as shitty everywhere else too.

Seriously, fuck biologists.

>> No.6963950

Math

>> No.6964203

Just an old underperforming "educator" trying his best to make children listen to him.
If you start moving kids around from school to school because of teachers like that, you'll have to homeschool.

>> No.6964475

Biotechnologist here, even I don't like biologists.
Too much useless crap in biology. On the other hand the same holds for nearly all sciences.

>> No.6964512

>>6962787

He's a biologist, not an engineer

>> No.6964599

>>6963721
>who the fuck needs a unified theory of mathematics
>who the fuck needs a unified theory of physics
>who the fuck needs a unified theory of chemistry
Go fuck yourself. Everything needs a unified theory as a basis otherwise you have a bunch of branches instead of a tree.

>> No.6964604

>>6962782
tell him that his eyes would't be real if physics wasn't real

>> No.6964684

>>6964599
> unified theory of chemistry
I don't even.

>> No.6964702

>>6964684
But there is one. We know what chemical processes are and how they work. This is the unified theory that combines all what we know about chemistry into one. Without it we'd lack the ability to link seemingly different processes to each other by knowing that ultimately they are both governed by the same laws. Having a unified theory allows us to extrapolate and deduce stuff we couldn't without it. Don't be so obtuse.

>> No.6964704

>>6964599
>otherwise you have a bunch of branches instead of a tree
Nope, you have a network.
Also there can be no unified theory of biology. That would be as useless as a unified theory of architecture.

>> No.6964705

>>6964702
Are you kidding me? We pretty much have the same for biology.

>> No.6964710

>>6964702
>But there is one. We know what biochemical and biological processes are and how they work. This is the unified theory that combines all what we know about biology into one. Without it we'd lack the ability to link seemingly different processes to each other by knowing that ultimately they are both governed by the same laws. Having a unified theory allows us to extrapolate and deduce stuff we couldn't without it. Don't be so obtuse.
fixed

>> No.6964878

>>6964704
>Nope, you have a network.
More like observations and speculations which may seemingly contradict eachother as long as we don't have a unified theory which would explain why it is so.

>Also there can be no unified theory of biology
Well it would really look like a tree with the general theory branching off into smaller more specific and less abstract areas which eventually lead to smaller branches, reaching observable empirical evidence.

The unified theory of biology would, in turn, be a branch of chemistry and ultimately we'd have a bigass tree of theory of everything, that would link all we know.

>>6964705
>Are you kidding me? We pretty much have the same for biology.
I didn't say we didn't have one. He said that we wouldn't need one so I explained why I think it's the opposite.

But still we're missing large chunks here and there.

>>6964710
What is the point of this post? I don't get what you're implying. Is it that biology is actually biochemistry in its core? Well, yeah, and biochemistry is physics in its core.

>> No.6967175

Plebs
without math there wouldn't be reality

>> No.6967288

>>6962782
>implying sheltering your kids from idiots is a good thing, they are going to have to deal with them at some point.

>> No.6967328

>>6967175
You assume the universe must make sense.

>> No.6967345

>>6963406
Or we just can pit each majors in a arena death match with the aid of their major to help them win the battle.

>> No.6967362

Tell your son every science will be a subfield of computerscience in a few years.