Do biologists have to be as intelligent to win a Nobel Prize (or Fields medal) as Physicists or Mathematicians...

Undergrads gonna untermench.

Less difficult than winning a Nobel prize in math or physics but more difficult than failing to become a mathematician or physicist, which is what will happen to 98% of people on this board.

Veeky Forums is usually about how society would be without restrictions or about trying to exagerate such lack of restrictions, like using swimming goggles to see what lies below a calm sea.

Veeky Forums is just how the academia really is; a bunch of intellectually insecure idiots that need to feel superior to other fields.

Yes, yes it is very difficult. Holy shit, are people really starting to shit on nobel prize winners because they didn't get their degree in math or physics? Just because the other sciences are just "applied math" or "applied physics" doesn't mean that a math/physics major will know shit about biology. You need to be very intelligent to achieve that level of success in any field of work.

He is narrow-minded. As most people, he is not well-rounded in all relevant subjects; and I imagine he lacks common sense and emotional intelligence (idiot savants present data, but they never contribute based on their own creativity or on genius).

The Nobel Prize is supposed to be based on merit, not raw intelligence.

Though one could make the argument that the capacity to maintain hard work over an extended period of time is a part of intelligence.

I mean the guy could cure several forms of cancer and the faggots on here would be like "yeah but can he solve a first year Newtonian mechanics problem?"

Th Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine should be removed.
>Physiology is just chemistry
>Medicine is just a glorified trade

Biologists btfo - theres a reason there's no "Nobel Prize in Biology", biology is not a hard science.

why are you so upset?

Yeah I agree, same with math, it's not a hard science because there's no nobel prize category

>without geology the world can't run
>no decent prize in geology

the medicine and physiology is really just a catch all term for biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular medicine, etc. which is fine.

their bell curve is lower than the more quantitative medals that is a reasonable assumption.

Statistics and anecdotal evidence say that they are indeed not as smart. But they also tend to do much more hard work (experiments) instead of wasting time bullshitting about their planned research and "high" intelligence which hasn't amounted to anything like an average physicist, who will most likely later find job in the IT sector.

>nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/advanced-chemistryprize2015.pdf
>This biology freshman undergraduate tier paper won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2015
Jesus fucking christ, people in the life sciences are such trash.

>Though one could make the argument that the capacity to maintain hard work over an extended period of time is a part of intelligence.
Emotional intelligence, yes. Cognitive intelligence, no.

Nah dude. I'm a first year physics student and I'm probably smarter than this bio faggot. I'm pretty good at triple integrals myself, and I know my way around a Jacobian. Cartesians, cylindrical coordinates, spherical coordinates... the list could just go on and on, I can do triple integrals in any coordinate system. My academic tutor thinks I'm really smart too; so yeah, biology is totally for brainlets. I could already have a nobel prize in biology already if I wanted to waste my time staring at funny smelling things in fridges all day, but I don't.

Meh, its all relative. As a biologist, I can tell you that on average physics and maths are more difficult. That's not to say that certain fields of biology don't rival the hardest topics in physics and math. Anyone who even has a trivial understanding of virology or immunology can tell you that its an immensely interdisciplinary subject that often requires researchers to draw upon concepts in physics and math especially in experimental design. Another thing worth noting is that progress in physics and mathematics is FAR more gradual than in the biological sciences. Physicists tote Newton and Einstein as being the best of them. While no one will argue that they were both immense geniuses, I will argue that the needs of science in their time gave them "clues" to lead their genius. On the other hand, Darwin seemed to conjure his ideas of natural selection and evolution out of nowhere.

nice bait shitstain, it only seems simple because it's now a well understood process partially thanks to these researchers. Won't even start explaining how important this research was for genetic engineering (and a shitton of other fields) to a brainlet such as yourself

“You know, people think mathematics is complicated. Mathematics is the simple bit. Its the stuff we can understand. Its cats that are complicated. I mean, what is it in those little molecules and stuff that make one cat behave differently than another, or that make a cat? And how do you define a cat? I have no idea.”
― John Conway

math/physics is simple, life sciences are complex

Lol the research happened 20 years ago

The fields of biology/medicine/agriculture/other life sciences have a significant amount of women, therefore, they aren't as intelligent as physicists or mathematicians - even if they are nobel laureates.

In Math and Physics you are thinking in models.

In Life Sciences you are suddenly forced to operate in reality.

Biased mathfag here.

Basically, there is no such thing as having a particular talent for biology. Being "good" at biology is a combination of having talent in other areas (math & logical thinking in general) and an interest in biology.

It isn't like math. Some kids are just naturally good at math, even when they know hardly anything about it. They're just quick to figure it out.

If a kid seems "naturally" good at biology it's probably because they are good at math and enjoy applying it to biology.

this logic is logical me thinks

Biology requires a lot more memorization than logical reasoning IMO. So, if you are naturally good at biology it probably means that you are either really interested in it or you have a very good long term memory.
Biology seems an easier topic to master than mathematics or physics. However, to win a fucking Nobel of it, one must be indeed smarter than average.

>Biology requires a lot more memorization than logical reasoning IMO.
Nah, this is only true at the undergraduate level. At the professional level, your ability to solve new problems and your scientific intuition is the most important part. It's just that biology is so complex that it requires more preparation to master the fundamentals.

this post makes it seem like mathematics is the primary skill involved in biology , or predictor of talent in biology.

much more important than skill at maths are memorisation, general logic (i.e. more like critical thinking or the kind of deduction or thinking that a lawyer might do than the kind nvolved in say an analysis or PDE problem) and imagination.

he's more intelligent than every single physicists/mathematician because he decided to major in a field during the golden age of genetics/soon to be gene editing with processes like CRISPR

so yes