Subject Sets! A bit of stereotypical fun.

[Mao]

the boundaries between the sciences are kind of blurred anyhow. theres plenty of chem in biology which is well...just chem but in living things. but then theres the whole social science-like side of it in evolution particularly which is merely theories and could be alluded to being almost philosophy

and a big word of warning to those who are bagging biology here but have never done it and think its an easy science; its not. many people actually realise that its more than just memory work and takes alot of problem solving and analysis unlike many of the other pure sciences which have strict formulas and theories which can be quoted word for word. the exam results speak for itself; u could lose almost 20 marks on the end year exam last yr and still get an A+. thats over twice as many marks as u can lose in spesh for an A+ =P (and dont bother trying to argue against that with statistical moderation etc. i really dont care, nor am i implying its harder than spesh, because im not. its an example.)

i dont do biology, but i do not consider it as easy.

just because something is easy doesnt make it a non-science. it is not judged by difficulty, but rather by principles.

and the examples you gave concern themselves with competition rather than actual difficulty. [A+ cut off relates to how many people do well rather than how hard a subject is]

[/0]

Perhaps it is because people do not highly regard biology and that is why they would rather spend more time on more respected sciences such as maths and physics. Many people go into it thinking it will be a 'bludge' subject, admittely, as I did. I have so much to learn for the biology mid-year exam... pages and pages and pages, far more than for maths, or even physics. Perhaps it is because of biology's uncertain reputation that the spread of marks isn't as tight as it would be for other sciences.

[Mao]

nononon, big misunderstanding.

biology/psychology are considered quasi sciences not because they are "easy", but because of their principles.
their difficulty has absolutely no references to why they are a science at all, and that's why at no point have I made the claim "they're not sciences because they're easy"

given that, many people conforms to the herd mentality of either siding with or against this argument with little understanding

[AppleThief]

Some people think subjects live on a hierarchy like this:
Maths
Physics
Chem
Biol
Psych
Inferior, non science subjects

This.

Sorry to change the subject here, but it's so true, and so frustrating. Why must I get looked down upon because people at school put too much emphasis on the "superior" subjects  :S

[cara.mel]

I still dont get why you know so much. Even how mao and glock both knew that river thing. where do you get it from

[Ahmad]

It's philosophy.

[cara.mel]

It's philosophy.

how did they learn it how do you know what to learn. where to start from. etc.

Edit: I'm pretty sure I've asked this before...

[Ahmad]

When you're learning by yourself you have more freedom as to what to learn. I'm aware that you like structure but just jump straight into what interests you. A good start could be reading about philosophy on the wikipedia page and clicking on links which interest you. Then you could try other sites, then ebooks/real books etc.

[Glockmeister]

1. I dont get how your biol example fails it, given your definition of empirical evidence
2. Why does that have to happen to be science

the three underlying principles are defined by Karl Popper, a realist in the philosophy of science.

a starter is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_Science

biology does not satisfy the "falsifiable" claim [it is not a science unless it can be completely disproven] if biological theorems can be completely disproven with observations, then it can be validated as a science.

i would write more except physics exam tomorrow,

[ps this is extremely off topic, and should be split (or merged with http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,2516.0.html)]

Remember, its not necessarily one theory absolutely kills another... for example we still use Newton's Theory of Motion in macro applications.

Also, having done Psych and Philosophy, I might make another comment here:

You would be hard-pressed to argue that Biology is not a science or even merely a quasi-science. Most, of not all of its theories do abide with Popper's Falsification. I would say the same for Psych as well.

Seeing as you the one that has made the claim, what theories of either of the two studies do you consider not fitting that falsification mould.

[Ahmad]

I know nina, I don't get it

Some people think subjects live on a hierarchy like this:
Maths
Physics
Chem
Biol
Psych
Inferior, non science subjects

but if you made me do biol or 'lower' I'd be utterly lost
I think that is completely stupid :p

http://xkcd.com/435/

[mark_alec]

That's what she said.

[humph]

heh. i pinned wednesday's comic on my door. someone's already come along and written an extra note underneath it:
"physics is to maths as sex is to mathsturbation"


epic lolz.

[Collin Li]

The reason I consider economics a science (for myself), is because it relies on a few very fundamental axioms (some standard ones, and some non-standard ones), and build up from there. The two important standard ones are: scarcity of resources and self-interested individuals.

It reminds me of how chemistry and physics both pursue the fundamental particles of the universe, and also how maths relies on axioms.

I'm not sure if I subscribe to any of the previously mentioned schools of thought on what determines what a science is.