10 ms·

Your story sounds like what I have seen, but biology is not a "hard science".

by nonbel 8y ago

seibelj 8y ago
Biochemistry and creating pharmaceuticals is absolutely a hard science
- nonbel 8y ago
  Not at all. In the hard sciences you can run reproducible experiments and have mathematical models used to make precise predictions and come up with "natural laws". Biologists were moving in that direction up to 1940 or so but that is not what is going on now. Here is the biggest funder of biomedical research in the world admitting that $27 billion out of $30 billion per year is wasted on unreproducible research: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3.htm https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3... And I would say that is optimistic because it does not consider misinterpreted results (interpreting your data correctly is even harder than figuring out how to perform and report reproducible experiments)...
  - seibelj 8y ago
    If biochemistry is not a hard science then the only hard sciences are math and physics
    - nonbel 8y ago
      I'd say both organic and inorganic chemistry are hard sciences since they make precise predictions about what will happen. But not biochemistry, and definitely not cell biology or molecular biology. I also wouldn't consider math a science since it doesn't require comparing your results to data.
      - OskarS 8y ago
        Biology is absolutely a hard science. The soft sciences are things like economics, sociology and psychology. Look up "hard science" on wikipedia. Look it up in a dictionary. Look it up in any reference work you like. It may very well be that you have your own peculiar definition of "hard science", or that you personally disagree that biology or biochemistry should be classified that way. That's fine, you're allowed to have your own opinions. But you having your own crackpot opinions doesn't make it fact in the real world.
        nonbel 8y ago
        I am using this definition: >"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science That same page does group biology in with physics and chemistry, but with no justification. From personal experience biology is much closer to a social science than it is to physics. I mean, most people who study biology-related stuff "hate math".
        OskarS 8y ago
        Are you honestly saying that medicine (a branch of biology) is not a "hard science"? That epidemiology, or genetics, or oncology isn't? Are you saying that when Crick and Watson deduced the structure of DNA based on the X-ray diffraction work done by Rosalind Franklin, they were not doing "hard science"? Hell, go back further: consider Mendel's discovery of the rules of genetic inheritance (and thus founding the field of genetics) by painstakingly planting, replanting, combing and recombining pea plants. It's hard to imagine a more pure and rigorous application of the scientific method, in any field. I'm sorry, but your position is beyond absurd. Even the page you link disagrees with you. It sounds very much like you once met a biologist who said that they didn't very much like math, and since then you've carried a personal prejudice against biologists. You admit as much in your comment.
      - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
        Uh chemistry is only predictable from first principles for diatomic molecules, or very simple extended structures like perfect bulk graphene. Beyond that chemistry is all about approximations
        nonbel 8y ago
        There is a spectrum of precision regarding the predictions you can make. At the high end is a point prediction, at the low end is "x is correlated with y somehow". In between are intervals of various sizes.
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    >In the hard sciences you can run reproducible experiments and have mathematical models used to make precise predictions and come up with "natural laws". Spend time with condensed matter physicists. What you describe is not what they do. A lot of results are not reproducible.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      I've been getting the impression that many areas of physics have been getting "softer", but have no direct experience. Even Feynman mentioned that physicists were discouraging replication way back in the "cargo cult science" talk.
      - BeetleB 8y ago
        >Even Feynman mentioned that physicists were discouraging replication way back in the "cargo cult science" talk. If replication is the benchmark, almost no one does it (physicist or otherwise). In all my time in academia, I didn't find a single person attempting to replicate anything. You don't get funding, tenure or papers from it. I was referring to everything else in your comment.
        nonbel 8y ago
        I've seen a couple direct replications in biomed, NIH even specifically funded some a few years back under the “Facilities of Research-Spinal Cord Injury” project. AFAIK, pretty much nothing replicated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18234196 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18234196 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643041/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643041/ http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/21195070 http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/21195070 But yes it is extremely rare. It is very frustrating because it is hard to come up with a precise model when you only half-trust the data to begin with, and when the replications are (rarely) run it appears that half-trusting the reported results is optimistic...

Your story sounds like what I have seen, but biology is not a "hard science".

by nonbel 8y ago

Your story sounds like what I have seen, but biology is not a "hard science".

seibelj 8y ago

Biochemistry and creating pharmaceuticals is absolutely a hard science

nonbel 8y ago
Not at all. In the hard sciences you can run reproducible experiments and have mathematical models used to make precise predictions and come up with "natural laws". Biologists were moving in that direction up to 1940 or so but that is not what is going on now. Here is the biggest funder of biomedical research in the world admitting that $27 billion out of $30 billion per year is wasted on unreproducible research: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3.htm https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3... And I would say that is optimistic because it does not consider misinterpreted results (interpreting your data correctly is even harder than figuring out how to perform and report reproducible experiments)...
- seibelj 8y ago
  If biochemistry is not a hard science then the only hard sciences are math and physics
  - nonbel 8y ago
    I'd say both organic and inorganic chemistry are hard sciences since they make precise predictions about what will happen. But not biochemistry, and definitely not cell biology or molecular biology. I also wouldn't consider math a science since it doesn't require comparing your results to data.
    - OskarS 8y ago
      Biology is absolutely a hard science. The soft sciences are things like economics, sociology and psychology. Look up "hard science" on wikipedia. Look it up in a dictionary. Look it up in any reference work you like. It may very well be that you have your own peculiar definition of "hard science", or that you personally disagree that biology or biochemistry should be classified that way. That's fine, you're allowed to have your own opinions. But you having your own crackpot opinions doesn't make it fact in the real world.
      - nonbel 8y ago
        I am using this definition: >"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science That same page does group biology in with physics and chemistry, but with no justification. From personal experience biology is much closer to a social science than it is to physics. I mean, most people who study biology-related stuff "hate math".
        OskarS 8y ago
        Are you honestly saying that medicine (a branch of biology) is not a "hard science"? That epidemiology, or genetics, or oncology isn't? Are you saying that when Crick and Watson deduced the structure of DNA based on the X-ray diffraction work done by Rosalind Franklin, they were not doing "hard science"? Hell, go back further: consider Mendel's discovery of the rules of genetic inheritance (and thus founding the field of genetics) by painstakingly planting, replanting, combing and recombining pea plants. It's hard to imagine a more pure and rigorous application of the scientific method, in any field. I'm sorry, but your position is beyond absurd. Even the page you link disagrees with you. It sounds very much like you once met a biologist who said that they didn't very much like math, and since then you've carried a personal prejudice against biologists. You admit as much in your comment.
    - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
      Uh chemistry is only predictable from first principles for diatomic molecules, or very simple extended structures like perfect bulk graphene. Beyond that chemistry is all about approximations
      - nonbel 8y ago
        There is a spectrum of precision regarding the predictions you can make. At the high end is a point prediction, at the low end is "x is correlated with y somehow". In between are intervals of various sizes.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >In the hard sciences you can run reproducible experiments and have mathematical models used to make precise predictions and come up with "natural laws". Spend time with condensed matter physicists. What you describe is not what they do. A lot of results are not reproducible.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    I've been getting the impression that many areas of physics have been getting "softer", but have no direct experience. Even Feynman mentioned that physicists were discouraging replication way back in the "cargo cult science" talk.
    - BeetleB 8y ago
      >Even Feynman mentioned that physicists were discouraging replication way back in the "cargo cult science" talk. If replication is the benchmark, almost no one does it (physicist or otherwise). In all my time in academia, I didn't find a single person attempting to replicate anything. You don't get funding, tenure or papers from it. I was referring to everything else in your comment.
      - nonbel 8y ago
        I've seen a couple direct replications in biomed, NIH even specifically funded some a few years back under the “Facilities of Research-Spinal Cord Injury” project. AFAIK, pretty much nothing replicated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18234196 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18234196 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643041/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643041/ http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/21195070 http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/21195070 But yes it is extremely rare. It is very frustrating because it is hard to come up with a precise model when you only half-trust the data to begin with, and when the replications are (rarely) run it appears that half-trusting the reported results is optimistic...