686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 114:
Line 114: + +
→Status of biology
Is biology purely a physical science? This presumes that life is purely a physical phenomenon. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Is biology purely a physical science? This presumes that life is purely a physical phenomenon. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:If you don't think so, then you chose the wrong name when you renamed this article. It was about all sciences except perhaps ones like you mentioned when you changed it, psychology and economics. I'm not sure that the latter are strictly considered sciences anyway, and would be happy for this article to revert to its previous name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:If you don't think so, then you chose the wrong name when you renamed this article. It was about all sciences except perhaps ones like you mentioned when you changed it, psychology and economics. I'm not sure that the latter are strictly considered sciences anyway, and would be happy for this article to revert to its previous name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Biology would be considered a Physical Science but certain branches of Biology would not, such as behavioral biology, although there have been some research pointing to certain genetics inducing behavioral traits (in which case it would be). Substance dependence is one I am looking at now, not the chemical interaction that causes physical dependency but the psychological dependency of non-addictive substances, such as ETOH and certain sugars. I guess to make things a little easier to understand, physical sciences need to have a physical substrate to study. That area of life that you had implied, being not physical, is beyond physical sciences and that area is left to theology.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)