[VadeRetro]

This is an issue raised by H.H.Pattee in his article on Bridging the Epistemic Cut - biologists are not as concerned when observations do not fit their theories as physicists are. To the physicists, contradictory evidence points to a problem with the theory itself, i.e. the theory is their main focus. The biologist follows the evidence.

Biologists and physicists are doing the same things. Physicists study nature at a level below the chaotic phenomena of biology. Sometimes it's easier for a physicist to identify when observations are inconsistent with theory. However, there's plenty of chaos and noise in particle collider experiments. A one-shot observation out of tens of thousands might have been the long-sought Higgs particle ... or not.

It's really the same thing. Both disciplines are being as rigorous as they know how right now.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree that both are being as rigorous as they know how to be. However, there is a significant difference which H.H. Pattee addresses as follows:

Consequently, physicists … are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts. Ernst Mayr (1997) believes this difference is severe enough to separate physical and biological models: ‘Yes, biology is, like physics and chemistry, a science. But biology is not a science like physics and chemistry; it is rather an autonomous science on a par with the equally autonomous physical sciences.'

IMHO, it is important to recognize that difference when evaluating the conclusions drawn by biology v. physics. To me, physics and mathematics are epistemologically pure.