Changes

Line 119: Line 119:     
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)
 
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)
 +
 +
:Biology is '''not''' considered a physical science. The physical sciences are widely referred to as those sciences which deal with non-living systems. Biology obviously does not fit this definition. Biology is a "life science." [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
228

edits