3 ms·

> Fundamental physics or esoteric math are ... most intellectually demanding of all Trying to rank the sciences by "hardness" is silly and counterproductive.

> Fundamental physics or esoteric math are ... most intellectually demanding of all Trying to rank the sciences by "hardness" is silly and counterproductive. Biology gets blown off as "stamp collecting", but it turns out to be frightfully hard in its own way. Look at this "map" of biochemical pathways from Roche: http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 It's a stupendously complicated dynamical system! This is just part of it, and measuring each arrow requires clever ideas and a heroic amount of work. Imagine how tricky psychology, which deals with the aggregate result of billions of these systems in the body and brain, must be--and the poor sociologists!

Mike98345 7y ago
Physicists study relatively simple fundamental particles. Biologists study the most complex structures in the known universe. Instead of understanding one particle, you're trying to understand structures of quadrillions of particles in an arrangements of mind boggling complexity. Yes you're right. In some ways biology is much harder than physics.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
I specifically said "_among_ the most intellectually demanding". Also, I was just listing too commonly known fields that are both difficult and economically useless. There are many other fields with problems as difficult as math/physics, but those like biology are economically useful. Which is why public+private funding for biology is, rightfully, many times that of fundamental (not applied) physics/math.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Hardness is useful bur in English is a misleading synonym. Hard science is more quantitative and has more rigor in terms of hard proof and mathematical models and less room for fuzziness. "Soft" science is fuzzier with more qualitative elements. It doesn't necessarily mean less difficult. Another distinction is that the level of tools limits things. Say studying color before and after the ability to analyze wavelengths.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  Can you explain the usefulness? From my perspective, it's a term, coined by a 19th century philosopher, that gets dragged out by people with physics envy. Modern biology, for example, is incredibly quantitative: molecular biologists collect massive genomics datasets, neuroscientists record from hundreds of sites in the brain, and ecologists, whom everyone thinks of as flannel-clad outdoorsmen, fit sophisticated statistical models. Psychology is getting there too, especially if you're willing to lump in related industries like advertising: Google and Facebook have massive datasets on people's activities and preferences. It's true that these fields have had less success with mathematical modeling, but you also have to look at the sheer number of interacting variables vs the ~10 terms in Maxwell's equations. It's possible that the underlying phenomena might often just be irreducibly complex, as this perspective argues: (preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 and was just published in Neuron).

Mike98345 7y ago

Physicists study relatively simple fundamental particles. Biologists study the most complex structures in the known universe. Instead of understanding one particle, you're trying to understand structures of quadrillions of particles in an arrangements of mind boggling complexity. Yes you're right. In some ways biology is much harder than physics.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

I specifically said "_among_ the most intellectually demanding". Also, I was just listing too commonly known fields that are both difficult and economically useless. There are many other fields with problems as difficult as math/physics, but those like biology are economically useful. Which is why public+private funding for biology is, rightfully, many times that of fundamental (not applied) physics/math.

Nasrudith 7y ago

Hardness is useful bur in English is a misleading synonym. Hard science is more quantitative and has more rigor in terms of hard proof and mathematical models and less room for fuzziness. "Soft" science is fuzzier with more qualitative elements. It doesn't necessarily mean less difficult. Another distinction is that the level of tools limits things. Say studying color before and after the ability to analyze wavelengths.

mattkrause 7y ago
Can you explain the usefulness? From my perspective, it's a term, coined by a 19th century philosopher, that gets dragged out by people with physics envy. Modern biology, for example, is incredibly quantitative: molecular biologists collect massive genomics datasets, neuroscientists record from hundreds of sites in the brain, and ecologists, whom everyone thinks of as flannel-clad outdoorsmen, fit sophisticated statistical models. Psychology is getting there too, especially if you're willing to lump in related industries like advertising: Google and Facebook have massive datasets on people's activities and preferences. It's true that these fields have had less success with mathematical modeling, but you also have to look at the sheer number of interacting variables vs the ~10 terms in Maxwell's equations. It's possible that the underlying phenomena might often just be irreducibly complex, as this perspective argues: (preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 and was just published in Neuron).