/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7386267]

Is biology the weakest science?
> at most only explains relationships while subjects such as chemistry and physics explain the universe at an intrinsic level

Im seriously debating this in my head because i was thinking about pursuing a biochemistry major

[Anonymous No.7386290]

You might want to reconsider before you accept life saving surgery or cancer treatment.

[Anonymous No.7386299]

>>7386267
Define "intrinsic level"

[Anonymous No.7386323]

>>7386267
Biochemistry is not weak. You can have your physics-chemistry there.
Biological processes are very complex, and you need a lot of science to at least have an idea what is really going on.

[Anonymous No.7386337]

>>7386267
>Is biology the weakest science?
>at most only explains relationships
lel, stick with biochem
proteomics/epigenomics is where it's at

[Anonymous No.7386338]

No. It's just studying phenomena at a different level. You can't really explain things in the realm of biology using chemistry, except in the simplest cases, in the same way that you can't really explain things in chemistry using physics, except in the simplest cases.

In grad school, the best people to talk to about my astrophysical models were the people in the population bio lab. They had a lot of experience with tricky differential equations... one in particular had some good methods for conditioning matrices that really should have been published somewhere.

[Anonymous No.7386364]

>>7386338
What kind of astrophysical models did you deal with? Not an astrophysicist by any stretch but curious.

[Anonymous No.7386392]

every science is applied math

[Anonymous No.7386418]

>>7386267
>physics explains the universe
Physics is just an approximation. Stop being an elitist faggot.

[Anonymous No.7386436]

Regenerative Medicine

good bye.

[Anonymous No.7386593]

>>7386392
No

[Anonymous No.7386604]

>>7386267
Define weak. Every major field of science is equally important, like it or not.

[Anonymous No.7386908]

>>7386267
If the field of Regenerative Medicine doesn't make Biology the most interesting science, I don't know what is exciting and interesting in the entire universe then.

[Anonymous No.7386911]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.7387242]

I don't know about weak, and I think biology is just as important as physics or chemistry.
However, from my experience with people in biology, the whole thing sounds like being in complete darkness. They vary something here, and something there, and see what happens, and if they find something interesting they move on to that direction and so on. It seems all purely experimental with little or no theoretical knowledge to back up, explain, or possibly advance their knowledge further. That's just my opinion based on limited knowledge, though.

[Anonymous No.7387249]

>>7386911
Physics majors are engineering rejects, lel

[Anonymous No.7387252]

>>7386604
>Every major field of science is equally important, like it or not.
lebait.jpg

[Anonymous No.7387254]

Do Biochem instead

[Anonymous No.7387256]

>>7386267
I like animals, I know alot about animals, and I want to work with animals.

So, if you want to look down at me because I'm following my passions, I'll be over here, happily taking care of my rats.

[Anonymous No.7387257]

>>7387252
In a manner, they are. Everyone says biology is applied chemistry, and chemistry is applied physics, but there's a reason all three sciences exist independently of each other. We can't explain everything through one field yet, and maybe we never will, and yet there is a need to answer equally important questions pertaining to all three fields, so, yeah, they're all equally important.

[Anonymous No.7387264]

>>7386337
ngs technologies is probably the biggest offender of what OP is talking about. it's like "oh lets generate a bunch of data and see what falls out"

[Anonymous No.7387284]

It's "weaker" than physics in the sense that there's less math describing its phenomena, but it's still a field that has well-researched and tested theories that can make accurate predictions. Something like anthropology is always going to be inherently "softer" than biology because you can't test it very well in a lab.

[Anonymous No.7387288]

>>7387284
>strength is determined by math
Wtf

[Anonymous No.7387289]

>>7387288
It is you weak faggot.

[Anonymous No.7387338]

>>7387249
Funny, it was the other way around with me and my friend.

[Anonymous No.7387342]

>>7387257
>equally important

No, that's bait and fucking stupid. However, all valuable? No denying that.

[Anonymous No.7387353]

>>7387342
Not bait, just my opinion. Care to elaborate on why you think it's wrong?

[Anonymous No.7387398]

You really should define "weakest" OP
Less math involved? Less probability of practical applications discovered in research?

[Anonymous No.7387461]

[Anonymous No.7387468]

>>7387398
I mean "weak" in the sense that it is the most abstract phenomena to represent and understand. We can determine lifes processes but we arent any closer to understanding how or why life happens, etc.

[Anonymous No.7387470]

>>7386267
Study what you're interested in, faggot.

[Anonymous No.7387516]

>>7386267
Can't be as weak as my degree.

>CS Major
>Biology path instead of physics
>Minor in Pyschology

[Anonymous No.7387532]

>>7387461
>Chem dude not participating in meaningless argument
Yeah sounds right to me, it's gud to be Chem

[Anonymous No.7387560]

>>7387532
>dude

[Anonymous No.7387562]

>>7387560
>being old

[Anonymous No.7387565]

>>7387516
Just curious, what for? How are you going to connect those? If at all.

[Anonymous No.7387571]

>>7387565
He sounds like he'll do work in neural networks or something.

[Anonymous No.7387575]

>>7387264
NGS isn't about 'generating data and see what falls out'. NGS and bioinformatics is the next step in biomedicine, like it or not.

[Anonymous No.7387576]

>>7387532
Not to mention his Hitler haircut

[Anonymous No.7387584]

>tfw people think medical science is weak
>tfw people go to doctors to not be weak
>tfw contradiction

[Anonymous No.7387588]

>>7387584
If you're coming here for advice, guidance, or decent conversations, then you're in the wrong place. I've haven't lurked /sci/ for too long, but from what I can tell, most people here just shit on all other majors besides their own. Leave so you don't get influenced by bad advice.

[Anonymous No.7387590]

>>7386908
How about space colonization?

[Anonymous No.7387606]

>>7387468
Well actually the problem with why life happened falls into the realm of physical biochemistry not just biology. Biology is the study of life, how it works and how it interacts. The thing is though that because, If you follow the purity idea of science where you go in order of math, math for physics, and math and physics for chem, then finally math physics and chemistry for biology you require quite a bit of stuff to understand biology at all. Biochemistry especially is mind boggling difficult to keep straight trying to figure out how all these varying chemical equations react in a heterogenous self regulating mixture. But I digress, the result I was getting to is that biology focuses on different portions of what is considered important to physics and chemistry. They need statistical modeling much more due to the aforementioned, >>7387284, and they need physics in how the water cycle works at a minute level and how organisms physical constitution withstand extremes. Chemistry in how the nitrogen cycle works and biochemistry as a whole. But to learn those things seems trivial to most solid chem and physics life choices. But the trick is not in the knowing it's in the connecting. In figuring out the reason a disease kill a person or why aphid populations boomed alongs idea ants.

Also deeper level biological concepts can be explained with math. That's most of inheritence because you can account for most everything in it using probabilities and calculations on population dynamics in equilabrium and otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7387612]

>>7387576
>his

[Anonymous No.7387628]

>>7387588
>I've haven't lurked /sci/ for too long
Don't be to hard on him, I have a pure math degree and I already got a 300K salary job.

[Anonymous No.7387639]

>Weakest science
Not even close.
>Only explains relationships
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.7387688]

>>7387342
Well if we were talking about importance it would be
Bio>Chem>Physics

[Anonymous No.7387691]

>>7387468
>We aren't any closer to how or why life happens
False

[Anonymous No.7387701]

>>7387628
>Don't be to hard on him, I have a pure math degree and I already got a 300K salary job

[Anonymous No.7387703]

>>7386267
Physics and chemistry are very different fields buddy. Chemistry only used some basic laws from physics and that's about it.

[Anonymous No.7387704]

>>7387284
Define weak.

[Anonymous No.7387710]

>>7387704
>in the sense that there's less math describing its phenomena

[Anonymous No.7387850]

>>7386267
Go for it, man.

Here's my opinion:

A lot of physics is easier than a lot of chemistry which is easier than a lot of biology. I realize that there are areas of each field that can be singled out and evaluated on their own, but the subjects as wholes get easier with more math involved.

I've always been good at math, and so physics, which is the science of math and logic, e.g. "this is the single equation for determining escape velocity," was so easy once you were taught the equations themselves. Chemistry, especially organic chemistry, can be made-up rules and what "probably" happens. You get impurities in syntheses, etc.. Biology is the worst for me because there aren't absolute truths in it. They're almost entirely observations.

That's how it is for *subjects,* though. I've never worked in the field of physics, but I'm sure it's much harder than working in the fields of biology or chemistry.

[Anonymous No.7387858]

biology is literally a tool for chemists. i used to respect biologists, but then I began working as a med chemist.

They just run our routine assays like monkeys and we do the thinking.

[Anonymous No.7387875]

>>7386290
This.

>2015
>not being biocentric