Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic
"Hard" sciences like physics lend themselves easily to mathematical abstraction. "Softer" sciences like biology do not. They deal in physical attributes and develop taxonomies rather than units of measure, but they must deal in attributes that can be observed and described.

As for problems associated with what can be "observed and described," I think I may have anticipated your point and tried to answer it here, at post #249.

Why does biology have to be a "'softer' science?" Supposedly biology deals with the biggest questions that can possibly be asked; and you are suggesting that as a scientific discipline, it cannot become more rigorous? If so, why not?

250 posted on 10/03/2013 1:54:21 PM PDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop
Why does biology have to be a "'softer' science?" Supposedly biology deals with the biggest questions that can possibly be asked; and you are suggesting that as a scientific discipline, it cannot become more rigorous? If so, why not?

I suggested that it cannot be simplified and abstracted as pure mathematics. I imagine it would be nice if we could. We could do things like predict all the effects of new drugs, just by running them through an equation. But it cannot be that "rigorous", because we don't know nearly enough to make it so. If you have any concrete suggestions on how to change it all so that we do, I'm sure that would be a very intersting discussion.

255 posted on 10/04/2013 7:01:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson