>biology >hard science

>>8887663
agreed, biology is a retarted pseudo-science, you don't even need to do any math

>>8887663
>shitpost
>2017

>>8887667
I mean at some point math is only less rigorously applied in bio because rigorous modeling of biological phenomena tend to quickly expose our current limitations in translating the real world into math and (more importantly) vice versa.

File: 1492431831001.png (67KB, 1316x1152px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1316x1152px

>>8887663
>biology
>science

>>8887667
>requiring math to be included in science

I jojjed

File: literally me.png (670KB, 1281x716px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 1281x716px

>>8887663
>satania
>hard demon

>>8887663
Tough as Hell to get a PhD in, even tougher to get a job...

>>8887663
What is hard science? I believe that people who have limited capability for abstraction tend to flock towards bio/earth science.

>>8887771
level of rigour

>>8887667
>retarted

Shame that it's mostly stamp collecting, as the science of shit like the brain is only the study of the most complex thing in the known universe. Embryology is fascinating, DNA, and so on. Biochemistry is more rigorous, no doubt, but a complete science of living systems would make physics look like nothing.

But sadly, it's stamp collecting.

>>8887663
Well... Biology is about real things while physics is about models.

>>8887663
The real problem is that people who do biology is that their sense of science is too much on a macro level. Meaning that they use an umbrella explanation of data that actually needs a tightly fine tuned explanation due to the intricacies of how the biology reacts to multiple stimuli.

Which is why one "rule" developed in biology can easily be shown to be untrue. The "rule" is too broad and doesn't take into account the high variability of biology on any scale. Which is in itself a bit of a oxymoronic statement. All of biology can be expressed using maths, but people keep insisting on playing on the macro level.

At least is it better than psychology. Psychology, for the most part, only deals with reactionary responses and never really gets down to the meat of things. If it did, it would be on the level of what you refer to as biology. As is stands psychology is just hokum and modern biology is still half-hokum.

Biology, like physics, is for insufferable brainlets who just cannot, cannot, C A N N O T handle the rigor of pure mathematics.

File: 446-pure-math-vs-applied-math.png (39KB, 473x226px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 473x226px

>>8888309

>>8888309
Pure mathematics for those who can't grasp the beauty of philosophy.

File: C_DnNLuUQAEino3.jpg (209KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1200x790px

engineering is the only science we need

Unironocally and in a non Bill Nye sense, there's a spectrum.
Towards ecology and the more "macro" you get, the more stamp collecting it seems.
On the other end there is biochemistry and genetics + epigenetics, which can be modeled much more easily.

>>8888403
Math is just a stamp collection of equations.

Biology is harder than physics.

You can't be wrong in physics. You are operating with models and theoreticla concepts based on other models and theoreticla concepts which also based on other models and theoreticla concepts.
And if CERN, Desy or whoever prove that you are not correct you will just call it a day and do another round of guessing for the next 20 years.

What is even stamp collection?

>>8888437
Science with only definitions of terms and classification, no measurement of quantities.

>>8888446
Math in a nutshell

>>8888446
This post shows how important definitions and classifications are.

Anon fucked himself right now.

File: satania bullied.jpg (111KB, 555x514px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 555x514px

>>8887663
>using a memegirl to shitpost about all the coolest shit
haha

Biology is more interesting than physics. At this point physics is just talking with invisible friends, something that you better leave to the autists.

File: 1484109250260.png (278KB, 740x732px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 740x732px

>>8888471

>>8887663
if biology is an easy science then why haven't physicists cured AIDS and cancer?

File: hqdefault.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

>shitposting smug chinese cartoon girls
>/sci/ related

>>8887667
>retarted

So this... this is the power of STEMfags ...

>>8888518
Anime website.

Nothing in Physics is so beautiful as the evolution theory.

>>8888507
Well, it's true.

>>8887842
And that's exactly the reason why it's possible to justify progress in physics while it's more complicate in biology.

>>8888510
Because physicists prefer to study autistic shit like strings and particles and whatevers. We should force them by gunpoint to use their smarts to do something useful like biology.

>>8888539
>physics while it's more complicate in biology.

No

>>8888545
*complicated
Why 'no'?

>>8887771
I'd say that is false, maybe for some biologists. Biology is a big catagory. Anyone doing field research, ecology, evolutionary science, or any kind of theoretical biology/ecology have to be very good at abstract thought to make the observations they do and perform the scientific method on them.
This is truer when you get into systems and networks or most interdisciplinary biology. Example I research ecosystem science, behavioral ecology/evolution, and I philosophize. I've been Drawn to biology since before I could read and I am a schizoid man who has lived most of his life in abstract thought.
What really draws people to acedemic biology and acedemia in general is a wonderful curiosity to understand the world around them.

>>8887836
Biosemiotics and systems/network biology/ecology and the unified views of evolution are getting close, all very recent, and interesting shit is happening all the time.
>stamp collecting
I don't understand the analogy

>>8888551
Living systems are much harder to measure and analyze than non-living.

>>8887842
Biology and physics both have empircal/theoretical work.
Theoretical work is more interesting in both disciplines.
Theoretical work is harder to do in biology and espically ecology because of the complexity of living systems, a lot of empirical work is needed to even make a half decent model of ecological interactions and there is lots of noise, and the empircal understanding of ecology is just starting to become significant

>>8888593
Yeah, that was my point. It's harder to justify progress in a science like biology than a science like physics where pretty much everything can be reduced to a mathematical model. Are you retarded?

>>8888604
>harder to justify
to who? to you?

>>8888612
No. Physics is a predictive science. You can safely assume that a model which makes more accurate predictions is better than other less accurate models. Biology deals with more complex systems. The possibility of false correlations is also higher.

English is not my native language and I'm having a hard time trying to develop my point. But to put it simply, the more fundamental the science, the easier it is to justify progress.

>>8888604
Biological sciences at least progress faster than physics.

>>8888647
You can't erase the noise in physical measurements either, so what's the point in physics?

>>8888601
>Theoretical work is more interesting in both disciplines.

Based on what?

>>8888664
>so what's the point in physics?

That's a quite interesting question in the philosophy of science field.

File: C8GheMFXkAQk6fC.jpg (98KB, 1200x731px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1200x731px

bio is THE place to be right now. cutthroat cometition billions at stake

>>8887663
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA