Bio is godtier, prove me wrong

>physics gone off the rails since einstein with a few bright spots here and there
>math has no use anymore
>chemistry might as well be a trade

then theres bio
>still adheres to scientific method
>useful in all kinds of medical research that has real world use
>lots of jobs available in industry, govt or teaching

Other urls found in this thread:

biology.washington.edu/sites/default/files/general/undergrad/BS MCD 2017 (1).pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You are right, immortality when?

Bio is God tier if you enjoy cleaning pippetes and wagecucking to pharmaceutical companies more than theorizing about the nature of reality

>>math has no use anymore

pippetes take so much time to clean, that math became too advanced for biologists

>>chemistry might as well be a trade

Yea chem sucks

>then theres bio
>>still adheres to scientific method

Statistical inference in medicine and evolutionary bio can be cringeworthy. It's because you think modern stats is useless


>>lots of jobs available in industry, govt or teaching

Jobs in bio labs are some of the most soul crushing jobs that in existence

then there's psych
>literally no one follows scientific method
>almost all studies irreplicable
>will be made obsolete by neuroscience
>second most common major, therefore useless

None of this is true.

it's about as much of a science as economics

>Physics went off the rails

Quite on the contrary, the development of the grand unified theory and standard model is one of the greatest achievements of physics to this day.

cont.

people who don't understand basic QFT and QCD should kys themselves.

Why are you seeing biology as only labwork user? There's a lot of comfy fieldwork in biology, and bioinfomatics/analytics is booming.

As a geneticist, I find biology incredibly interesting for its ability to describe and analyze complex systems, and while I'm not much a fan of prescriptive "engineering" like approaches, I think the applications are probably the most important out of any field out there.

For example, with regards to advances in genetic engineering, a lot of industry is gearing up for the eventuality that we'll be able to mass produce a lot more biological product. Things like ivory, meat, hide, fur, etc. could theoretically be genetically engineered to grow photosynthetically or with energy derived from photosynthetic sources, essentially allowing the farming of certain materials.

It's an exciting field to be in because of how close (relatively) we're getting to unified models within physiological, molecular, and developmental approaches, and what that means for the future of technology and how we see life. Hell, even A.I. is often informed by evolutionary processes and many have gained insight on how to build learning machines based on certain selection mechanisms and patterns observed and cataloged by biologists.

>
>it's about as much of a science as economics
user is an economist

See I would only CONSIDER it if I knew for a fact that getting a job doing something of that sort would be easy.

Einstein ruined astrophysics. Everything he ever said is treated as an axiom you are not allowed to question

I was literally called an anti-semite for even insinuating relativity theory was bollocks

Psychiatry is excellent at tricking people into spending their money with skinner box methods

What the failed at is actually helping people with mental health problems

I don't know. I think that the degree you get, especially as an undergrad, should be purely based on interest and passion. Job prospects are far more influenced by the connections you make and the way you carry yourself- barring of course making some irrelevant choice like poetry when you want to be a scientist. A good biology program for undergrad leads to many different directions, from ecology and field biology, through data sciences, to working with artificial intelligence, through working on important projects like the connectome or genomes, to biotech and genetic engineering.

Bio gets a lot of shit on Veeky Forums because most people's experience with biology comes from just highschool biology which only focuses on taxonomy and physiology, which are by far the most boring parts of biology, and the only real ones brainlets can do.

>Jobs in bio labs are some of the most soul crushing jobs that in existence
What makes you say this?

And is it worse than lab physics or chem jobs?

desu principle of equivalence and relativity is pretty fundamental. I don't think anybody doubts it's legitimacy given the staggering amounts of experimental evidence supporting it.

I'd say it's really a much better idea to go straight for physics instead. You'll obtain immensely more respectable range of skills than you would if you were studying biology. If you want to focus on the bio side you can specialize in biophysics and literally do biologist's job ab initio.

>bio
>lots of jobs available in industry, govt or teaching
BFRFLFAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAH
gtfo kiddo :')

I don't know. While I agree a strong background in physics is required to be a good biologist, biophysics itself (of course, depending on the program) doesn't usually give all of the necessary skills. There are a lot of 'pure logic' based skills in biology that are relevant to many levels and fields, like genetics, any population level biology, or even systematics and evolution. I'm certain a physicist (a competent one at least, certainly not an engineer) would be able to pick it up quickly, I just don't know about the minutia of how grad programs consider it.

I'd probably say you're right though. The reason I'd recommend a good bio program over a good physics program is mostly due to the available tools in bio programs that give it extra value to be learned in the context of a university program as opposed to learning through instruction and textbook, like much of physics can. Stuff like live specimen, expensive machines like 3rd gen gene sequencers, Ms/Ms machines and access to reagents that are needed for certain tests.

"respectable range of skills" is kind of a bunk metric, though. A competent biology program gives decent coverage of chemistry and physics, requires programming skills in R and some python, and will prime students for many other programs post-graduation. It's just the massive amount of brainlet premed fags, cheaters, amphetamine abusers, and the like which give bio a bad name to the layman and to people in the peripheral. Don't worry- we hate premeds too.

Could you show me some syllabus of the competent programs you're talking about? I'd really like to see which bio programs offer "decent coverage of chemistry and physics". I'd really prefer a link to some university that offers it.

I think that most good MSc. programs in biophysics have at least two semesters of specialized labs that introduce the students to most of the notorious experimental techniques used in bio research.

Sure, the program I went through for biology wasn't so bad. I know there are better programs out there (for example, it's only recommended you go through wave physics for this program), but it served pretty well.

biology.washington.edu/sites/default/files/general/undergrad/BS MCD 2017 (1).pdf

The classes themselves are rigorous, taught from theoretical approach, and the like. I wish there were more focus on mathematics, but there's something of a lobbying force that premeds seem to hold (considering the UW's med school is rank #1 for primary care) so it's not the best.

Oh definitely though, masters programs are a different ballpark though. I'm really just speaking about what I think would be a good degree for an undergrad pick.

>Choose one option: algebra / calculus based options

You can choose the difficulty and still be given the same amount of credits? How is one semester of physics decent?

That's one of the concessions made to premeds. I took the calculus based, but I heard the algebra based course makes up for its lack of calculus with a lot more in-depth sort of take on classical mechanics. No idea how they teach electromagnetism without it.

And the courses themselves are fairly rigorous, and really thorough as far as EM, wave mechanics, and classical mechanics are concerned. The individual biology and chemistry courses take a physical approach to a lot of problems, and the way the curriculum carries QFT through chemistry from physics and how orbital dynamics are integrated into biology makes for good reinforcement.

That's not to say you can be a physicist or a chemist after getting a bsc in biology, that's just silly. Just that chemistry and physics are appreciated and often used in relationship to biology in competent programs, and that it's often respected in higher education and beyond.

Well, I'm now partially convinced that there are fairly good biology programs.

but I'd still have to really see the syllabus of the physics classes to appreciate the decency of the course.

>>math has no use anymore
This triggers me so much. Every real geneticist/molecular biologist/bioinformatician is a mathematician FIRST AND FOREMOST YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING SCUM HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE QUEEN

Yes, because many bio lab jobs are for pharma which needs no elaboration to convey just how truly awful the pharma industry is. Lab jobs in pharma are essentially the epitome of wage slave.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor