I mean "how so?" All science is built on inferences. An inference is
defined as "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning." You are claiming that chemistry and physics have less of that and that this somehow makes them more scientific.
You are cherry picking what I said, and I suspect because your ego is involved. Why is that? What is your degree in?
I know what "inference" mean. And that's why I said chemistry and physics depend less on inferences than biology. And I stated that in relation to the
deterministic nature of the physical sciences which give them their
greater predictive power.
Example: Potassium interacting with water.
That always will happen--it is deterministic--and no "inferences" are needed as throwing potassium in water once, twice, or a trillion times touches on several things important to science:
observation (of an experiment), repeatability, ability to predict outcome.
As opposed to say descent with modification as an explanation to human origins. Zero observation (of any experiment producing an actual human from another primate species), zero repeatability, zero ability to predict outcome. However, the explanation is accepted through
inferences from the fossil record.
Biology in this way reminds me of my Catholic past with bone relics from saints and stories about the bones.
Yes, that does not mean chemistry and physics don't uses inferences. It was and is needed at the atomic level. But one would really be pushing it to conflate those physical sciences with biology. But even with that... like I said at some point one can't advance in the biological sciences without having an increased grasp on chemistry and physics as it is the laws of chemistry and physics that actually drive the internal functions of biological organisms.
I mean really... look at the "science" of taxonomically classifying things in biology prior to that area of biology using genetics to classify things. Come on... that was more of an "art" than a science. I even had a biology teacher say so.
That doesn't follow. You are conflating several levels of analysis in a greedily reductionistic move.
It follows well enough. I gave an explanation. You've responded with none but an accusation, which leads me to believe you really know nothing much at all about biology. Granted engineering and medicine are what's termed "applied sciences," nonetheless the civil or electrical engineer draws heavily from the physical sciences. And in medicine--all that prescription medication--that's based and drawn from the physical science of chemistry.
But no two human beings are alike physiologically--not even identical twins--if for no other reason than lifestyle differences. One twin may smoke tobacco or work in a coal mine or eat a lot more greasy food. Whatever. All prescription medication will not work the same--if at all--on all individuals. This is where the medical doctors expertise comes into play in adjusting medication or switching prescriptions. This one might say is the greater area of "biology." The lesser deterministic part. The complexity part of unique organisms even in single species.
But these
advancements you think of in medicine and cellphone technology are overwhelmingly, almost entirely, coming from the physical sciences (via the "applied sciences").
Don't even try making a rebuttal because it's becoming pretty clear to me you have no idea what you're talking about. Let me guess?
From
xkcd:
Known to who? I've never heard physics called that, not even by physicists.
That's you're problem if you've never heard that. Not mine. The physics department at UW-Milwaukee had that posted up on one of their walls in the physics building trying to entice more students enroll in physics courses or major in physics.
I guess now you're going to tell me you've never heard of various departments in universities trying to persuade students to take their classes or pick them as a major, eh?
That hasn't been my experience at all. I've found that most of the people concerned by this nebulous concept of "purity" are undergraduates, particularly those who are unsure of their chosen career path.
These were people with advanced degrees he was speaking of. Not undergrads. Undergrads do not run the various academic departments in a university.
So you picked biology not because you were interested in it, but because it appeared far less quantitative and rigorous to you? Appearances can be deceiving and it would be ill-considered to select a major based on them.
I never said I wasn't interested in biology. I said I suck at math--and fully aware of this--I picked biology instead of chemistry or physics. I started in school at age 35 and already steeped in crack cocaine addiction. Both my brothers are far better at math than myself, the youngest could easily obtain a Ph.D. in math if he wanted, nearly all high school drop outs in the USA are better at math than myself. By me taking up a science, a natural science, was like me with my mathematical limitations say... deciding I'm enroll in Army Ranger school. Physics might be like me trying to become a Navy SEAL except fully knowing I don't know how to swim.
So, I picked biology because I knew that while it would be some challenge for me I could still have better odds passing through it than I would taking chemistry of physics. And I was right.
So, I'm not listening to any berating. Most Americans can--if they desired--obtain a bachelor degree in biology. Because most have the math skills. They simply choose not. Some have other interest consume them. Others simply want an easier route even though they could do the work with passing grades.
No, you haven't. How does the probabilistic nature of inference make something less of a science? By that logic, quantum mechanics is less of a science than Newtonian mechanics.
I've already stated what I've stated and I'm not going to go in circles repeating myself.
The bedrock of the thing here is that men with doctoral degrees in science and philosophy as philosophers of science have criticized psychology as not being a science. They were men with Ph.D.'s and not "undergrads." And this was taught to me in a philosophy of science class, lectured by a man with a Ph.D. and the required reading material authored by learned persons with Ph.D.'s.
So, you can attempt to make this a personal attack on me all you want.
Funny thing is I haven't taken any psychology course and yet my ego does not get in the way of me fairly judging biology for what it is next to chemistry and physics.
Mind you... biology as a subject takes a lot more work out of me than 98% of the other subjects I've taken in college. Although my philosophy courses were usually pretty tough, but in a different way.
