Quote:
Originally Posted by Alchemist11
I don't think you can appreciate biology without chemistry though.
I mean, what's the point of learning pathways (i.e., cell bio) if you don't understand/aren't taught the chemistry behind it? In fact, cell bio is a perfect example - it's a horrible course because they haven't mixed the body's biology with the reasoning of chemistry, they've just given you the biology and asked you to memorize it.
And physics and chemistry are quite connected too - you can solve the Schrodinger equation but its usefulness comes in when you're able to apply it to quantum mechanics in chemistry.
In that case I think chemistry is an essential discipline, to make sense of biology and for the applications of behaviour of the universe, especially with respect to the behaviour of atoms.
|
I'm not sure as to whether or not I buy this argument.
There's a point in each discipline where reasoning is cut short - that is, where something is basically taken as given and 'memorized' (for lack of a better word). It happens in the use of math for physics (otherwise physicists would double as mathematicians), physics in chemistry, chemistry in biology, etc.
Actually, one could argue that cutting reasoning short may eliminate a good deal of the (paradigm-based) problems in the association of deductive models (or empirical models, one level up) with observed phenomena.
