>>3891564the criticism in biology is that it's not able to predict things well; there are no true laws. as time goes on, people will probably have to conclude that this isn't due to a lack of tools, but it's the nature of the science itself. it would be like trying to shed light on darkness so you can see darkness better. math gives a more rigorous way to predict phenomenon, but what kind of math can be modeled onto something like cellular biology? differential equations? only by the extension of physics. even then it's vastly oversimplified in order to make it like physics (hey they still work amazingly this way!)
fuck all the people who drag math into science and treat it like a holy statue- it's like a bunch of primitive tribesmen hailing a god. math has nothing to do with these asinine arguments about intellectual superiority, that's college kids stuff.
anyways, these threads are still hilarious because they make fun of premeds and dawkin cocksuckers, who flood the biology undergrad department not because they really like science, but because they want to have some sort of social status/superiority. it kinda mirrors /sci/, in a way.