So. I have a background in biophysics which is the part of biology where most physics folks go. It's highly quantitative, but still it struggles with the "ass

So. I have a background in biophysics which is the part of biology where most physics folks go. It's highly quantitative, but still it struggles with the "assume a spherical cow" mental model of many physics and engineering folks. And the biology folks are stuck in a guild mentality (protecting their field by limiting the number of entrants) and very artisanal and resist increased quantitative methods. Over time I've mentally recategorized entire parts of medical science into what I would say is non-science, or at least, a very different approach to science. In particular, nutrition, and many other areas, take extremely limited amounts of data and extrapolate it, making conclusions that far exceed what the data actually supports. And the folks publishing it got really good at convincing the larger press/medical world that they knew what they were talking about, which has led to all sorts of trends. I would love to see more translation of quantitative physics into the medical sciences, but it's truly a challenging problem, especially because we (for good reasons) don't run the sorts of trials that would provide truly convincing evidence for causal mechanims related to disease, or whatever area of biology you care about.