6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - hitekker 8y ago
      Just move on. Someone made a lazy and uninformed opinion and then, instead of admiting fault or walking away, they struggled to justify their own ignorance. Ironically in the same vein as the OP article!
      - OskarS 8y ago
        Good advice.
      - nonbel 8y ago
        Interesting you concluded my opinion was lazy and uninformed when I was the one sharing links and references. That behavior usually indicates the opposite. Indeed, that heuristic would be correct in this case. Not that it matters to the point, but I have a PhD in a biomedical field and spent many years working in it before I quit because I got fed up with how "soft" it was. The sad part is it will never improve to become a "hard science" if people think it already is one. I mean really think about it. Biology is the study of how complex systems change over time, yet learning the primary tool we have to study/analyze change (calculus) is not a prerequisite. Doesn't that seem strange for a "hard science"?
      - crimsonalucard 8y ago
        This comment is insulting and rude. There are other ways to inform someone that you think he is wrong while being civil and mature. That being said I get where the commenter is coming from. Much of biology is a qualitative science. Darwin's evolution was originally elucidated through descriptions not hard numbers and statistics. Taxonomy in zoology is also largely qualitative.
        hitekker 8y ago
        That comment was only insulting if you believe that biology is not a hard science; an idea which is itself insulting, dismissive and farcical. But, if a person does share that opinion, I can see how that person might be inclined to ignore tone, and focus on supporting that opinion.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >"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." This describes some of the mathematical economics I've read.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      Can you give an example of a testable prediction?
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        That there is a general tendency for the rate of profit across society to fall with time, subject to certain countervailing measures.
        nonbel 8y ago
        I would have preferred a reference to the paper making the prediction, but that sounds very vague so whatever.
- nonbel 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?" These fields in particular are not even close to being hard, especially oncology which appears to (somehow) be even worse off than psychology.[1:3] I bet less than 1% of people with masters or greater in a bio field have used calculus for anything in the last 5 years. While of course the definition of "hard science" is arbitrary, here are some decent overviews of the differences between physics and bio: https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(02)00133-2 https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(02)0013... https://meehl.dl.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua1696/f/074theorytestingparadox.pdf https://meehl.dl.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua1696/f/074theoryte... Refs: [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a [2] https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/effort-to-reproduce-cancer-studies-scales-down-effort-to-18-papers-64593 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/effort-to-reprodu... [3]https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/rigorous-replication-effort-succeeds-just-two-five-cancer-papers https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/rigorous-replication...
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.

by nonbel 8y ago

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.
  - hitekker 8y ago
    Just move on. Someone made a lazy and uninformed opinion and then, instead of admiting fault or walking away, they struggled to justify their own ignorance. Ironically in the same vein as the OP article!
    - OskarS 8y ago
      Good advice.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      Interesting you concluded my opinion was lazy and uninformed when I was the one sharing links and references. That behavior usually indicates the opposite. Indeed, that heuristic would be correct in this case. Not that it matters to the point, but I have a PhD in a biomedical field and spent many years working in it before I quit because I got fed up with how "soft" it was. The sad part is it will never improve to become a "hard science" if people think it already is one. I mean really think about it. Biology is the study of how complex systems change over time, yet learning the primary tool we have to study/analyze change (calculus) is not a prerequisite. Doesn't that seem strange for a "hard science"?
    - crimsonalucard 8y ago
      This comment is insulting and rude. There are other ways to inform someone that you think he is wrong while being civil and mature. That being said I get where the commenter is coming from. Much of biology is a qualitative science. Darwin's evolution was originally elucidated through descriptions not hard numbers and statistics. Taxonomy in zoology is also largely qualitative.
      - hitekker 8y ago
        That comment was only insulting if you believe that biology is not a hard science; an idea which is itself insulting, dismissive and farcical. But, if a person does share that opinion, I can see how that person might be inclined to ignore tone, and focus on supporting that opinion.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >"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." This describes some of the mathematical economics I've read.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    Can you give an example of a testable prediction?
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      That there is a general tendency for the rate of profit across society to fall with time, subject to certain countervailing measures.
      - nonbel 8y ago
        I would have preferred a reference to the paper making the prediction, but that sounds very vague so whatever.
nonbel 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?" These fields in particular are not even close to being hard, especially oncology which appears to (somehow) be even worse off than psychology.[1:3] I bet less than 1% of people with masters or greater in a bio field have used calculus for anything in the last 5 years. While of course the definition of "hard science" is arbitrary, here are some decent overviews of the differences between physics and bio: https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(02)00133-2 https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(02)0013... https://meehl.dl.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua1696/f/074theorytestingparadox.pdf https://meehl.dl.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua1696/f/074theoryte... Refs: [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a [2] https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/effort-to-reproduce-cancer-studies-scales-down-effort-to-18-papers-64593 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/effort-to-reprodu... [3]https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/rigorous-replication-effort-succeeds-just-two-five-cancer-papers https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/rigorous-replication...

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.