I'd say both organic and inorganic chemistry are hard sciences since they make precise predictions about what will happen. But not biochemistry, and definitely not cell biology or molecular biology.
I also wouldn't consider math a science since it doesn't require comparing your results to data.
Biology is absolutely a hard science. The soft sciences are things like economics, sociology and psychology. Look up "hard science" on wikipedia. Look it up in a dictionary. Look it up in any reference work you like.
It may very well be that you have your own peculiar definition of "hard science", or that you personally disagree that biology or biochemistry should be classified that way. That's fine, you're allowed to have your own opinions. But you having your own crackpot opinions doesn't make it fact in the real world.
>"Are you honestly saying that medicine (a branch of biology) is not a "hard science"? That epidemiology, or genetics, or oncology isn't?"
These fields in particular are not even close to being hard, especially oncology which appears to (somehow) be even worse off than psychology.[1:3]
I bet less than 1% of people with masters or greater in a bio field have used calculus for anything in the last 5 years. While of course the definition of "hard science" is arbitrary, here are some decent overviews of the differences between physics and bio:
>"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
That same page does group biology in with physics and chemistry, but with no justification. From personal experience biology is much closer to a social science than it is to physics. I mean, most people who study biology-related stuff "hate math".
Are you honestly saying that medicine (a branch of biology) is not a "hard science"? That epidemiology, or genetics, or oncology isn't? Are you saying that when Crick and Watson deduced the structure of DNA based on the X-ray diffraction work done by Rosalind Franklin, they were not doing "hard science"?
Hell, go back further: consider Mendel's discovery of the rules of genetic inheritance (and thus founding the field of genetics) by painstakingly planting, replanting, combing and recombining pea plants. It's hard to imagine a more pure and rigorous application of the scientific method, in any field.
I'm sorry, but your position is beyond absurd. Even the page you link disagrees with you. It sounds very much like you once met a biologist who said that they didn't very much like math, and since then you've carried a personal prejudice against biologists. You admit as much in your comment.
Just move on. Someone made a lazy and uninformed opinion and then, instead of admiting fault or walking away, they struggled to justify their own ignorance.
Interesting you concluded my opinion was lazy and uninformed when I was the one sharing links and references. That behavior usually indicates the opposite. Indeed, that heuristic would be correct in this case. Not that it matters to the point, but I have a PhD in a biomedical field and spent many years working in it before I quit because I got fed up with how "soft" it was.
The sad part is it will never improve to become a "hard science" if people think it already is one. I mean really think about it. Biology is the study of how complex systems change over time, yet learning the primary tool we have to study/analyze change (calculus) is not a prerequisite. Doesn't that seem strange for a "hard science"?
This comment is insulting and rude. There are other ways to inform someone that you think he is wrong while being civil and mature.
That being said I get where the commenter is coming from. Much of biology is a qualitative science. Darwin's evolution was originally elucidated through descriptions not hard numbers and statistics. Taxonomy in zoology is also largely qualitative.
This is utterly incorrect. You can disagree with people without being rude.
You cannot call an idea itself insulting unless you yourself are a biased person. Ideas in itself are just statements with no malevolence intended. Only people can express malevolence.
I don't agree with him. But I see where he's coming from. A lot of biology is just observing behavior and documenting observations. It is very different from employing the scientific method in an experiment. It is also very different from trying to quantify everything. The line between hard and soft is blurry.
Sometimes reality can make people feel bad, that doesn't mean we should try to ignore it. Lets take the cancer research example. Using this definition:
>"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
1) Producing testable predictions
--- The predictions are almost all vague, of the form "x will be correlated to some degree with y".
2) Performing controlled experiments
--- Maybe, but I very often see that proper blinding procedures were not used.
3) Relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models
--- Mathematical models are rarely used to make precise testable predictions.
--- There was some progress on this front from Armitage and Doll way back in 1954 but interest has largely fizzled out.
4) A high degree of accuracy and objectivity
--- As mentioned in #1 and #3, making a precise prediction at all is rare. Accuracy doesnt matter much if you predict vague stuff.
5) Higher levels of consensus
--- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results.
6) Faster progression of the field
--- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results.
7) Greater explanatory success
--- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results.
8) Cumulativeness
--- The more research that has been done on cancer the more complex things have gotten, to the point where now they say "cancer is many diseases". This is the opposite of what happens when you gain a cumulative understanding and figure out "natural laws" that make things easier to understand.
>"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method."
This describes some of the mathematical economics I've read.
Uh chemistry is only predictable from first principles for diatomic molecules, or very simple extended structures like perfect bulk graphene. Beyond that chemistry is all about approximations
There is a spectrum of precision regarding the predictions you can make. At the high end is a point prediction, at the low end is "x is correlated with y somehow". In between are intervals of various sizes.
I also wouldn't consider math a science since it doesn't require comparing your results to data.