[AmishDude]

Biological mathematics is very well established, heavy into discrete disciplines, linear algebra and calculus, and has an enviable, well-established predictive track record.

It's ad hoc, it's not serious mathematics.

Are you under the impression that pure math hasn't got it's byways and alleys where we deal with failures, natural limits of analysis, and groping around in the dark, unaided by provably formal demonstrations?

Not in pure mathematics. It is not the same as an experimental science. Axiom, definition, theorem -- if it's proven, it's right. No muss, no fuss.

[donh]

Are you under the impression that pure math hasn't got it's byways and alleys where we deal with failures, natural limits of analysis, and groping around in the dark, unaided by provably formal demonstrations?

Not in pure mathematics. It is not the same as an experimental science. Axiom, definition, theorem -- if it's proven, it's right. No muss, no fuss.

You don't know what you are talking about. Much of "pure" mathematics has not been assailed by formal systems of proof, and some never can be, provably. You opinions about biology are as uninformed as your opinions about formal mathematics.

[daysailor]

Let me see if I get it...

Biology is a "soft" science because it's not, well math.

And until biology actually *becomes* math, it is only something to sneer at.

Did I miss anything?