3 ms·
If a thing can't be defined either specifically or usefully, maybe it should stay in the humanities rather than invade science?
by pessimizer 4y ago
If a thing can't be defined either specifically or usefully, maybe it should stay in the humanities rather than invade science?
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoIf we go with this argument how much of biology becomes humanities?
- danaris 4y agoI think if you actually went over and talked to some biologists, you'd find that they have, in fact, put aside various colloquial terms for scientific use because they're insufficiently rigorous.
- dekhn 4y agoNo; many things in biology are not easily defined (due to limitations of technology, or our own ability to classify things is faulty) but are solidly in the area of quantitative biology. Example: in the past, "rho factor" was a magical component in a test tube that had a well-defined activity but nobody knew "what" rho was (hence the term "factor"). Eventually, rho factor was isolated and purified to the point where molecular characterization determined it was a protein with a specific function. but that didn't stop people from studying it as a "thing" that had no real "definition" other than the visible activity of its function.