Biology is not a science

[gamila]

The Australian philisopher colin leslie dean points out that biology is not a science
A science needs a system of classification through which it identifies the objects of its study

Without a system of classification a science cannot come into existence
Now biology is the "science of life" but
1) biology cannot tell us what life is It can tell us what life does but it cant tell us what it is that makes an organism alive ie the life force

this is what life does ie what an organism does that has life but it does not tell us what the life force is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

# Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
# Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
# Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
# Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
# Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
# Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
# Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms

all this is is a list of what an organism with life does but this list does not tell us what life is
to make it clearer some religions would say what makes us alive ie have life is our soul

take this definition from wiki

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes ("alive," "living"), from those which do not

this is a blantaly circular definition all it says is life is a characteristic of things that are alive ie have life and as such totally meaningless

now even apart from not telling us what it is that gives life to an organism scientist cant even agree on their definition of life

To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists

with out being able to agree on what life does- let alone not being able to tell us what LIFE IS - the whole foundation of biology collapses

2) biologist classify living organisms by a heirarchy of taxonomies
ie species phylum
but again biologists cant tell us what species is or phylums are

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"
With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless

Thus it can be seen that biology is not a science as its classificatory systems cannot identify the objects of its science if it cannot identify the objects of its investigations it cannot be a science
all it is is a meaningless array of terms which dont identify anything

[Darby]

Well, if a philosopher says it, it must be true, because he defines a term his own way and it doesn't conform.

This is all the argument of a compulsive labeler someone who says, "Your area must meet my expectations." You obviously need very black-and-white terminology to trust a discipline, but the disciplines don't really care. Life does not conform to your wishes, and neither does the science associated with it.

And the magical thinking that goes into the idea that somehow there is a "life force" is pretty pitiful. It's not even anti-science, it's pure nonsense.

You really need at least some understanding of biology before you have any legitimacy to criticize it, and from the parroting of crackpot straight-from-ignorance concepts you do repeatedly, you're not even close.

[AFJ]

Gamila,
It's just like if you look at at a wall that has been painted. What color is it? Is it yellow or yellow-yellow green or is it a shade or a tint of yellow or yellow green. Perhaps it is a degree darker than true yellow, is it caused from black or is it in part a neutral of yellow and violet? Or is it yet another brown--another neutral from green and red?

The point is that if someone says it is yellow it is an estimation and it orients what we see with what we say--basic understanding of the world around us. I think you are splitting hairs on this issue.

[wbla3335]

Folks, it's foolish to try to reason with someone who cannot reason. Gamila, under different names, has been repeatedly banned from other forums for doing what he/she/it does here, where moderation is lax. If you don't feed it, it will go away.

[gamila]

You really need at least some understanding of biology

i know that biology which studies life dose not know what life is
and
it does not even know what species or phylum are
thus
it is not a science as its classifications system cant locate the objects under investigation
as such
biology ends in meaningless nonsense
ie this is nonsence meaningless babble because they dont know what species or phylum are

http://www.indianchild.com/animal_kingdom.htm

Animal Kingdom can be split up into main groups, vertebrates (with a backbone) and invertebrates (without a backbone). When you think of an animal, you usually think of something like a cat, a dog, a mouse, or a tiger.

All told, around 800,000 species have been identified in the Animal Kingdom -- most of them in the Arthropod phylum.

In fact, some scientists believe that if we were to identify all species in the tropical rain forests the ranks of Arthropoda would swell to over 10 million species! Most people do not normally think of a clam, a jellyfish, or an earthworm as an animal.

Usually, a species is called by its genus name (capitalized) followed by its species name (lower case), so a human being is called Homo sapiens. In Latin that means "wise man."

To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc; and Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria.

The next category is the Phylum. There are several phyla within each kingdom. The phyla start to break the animals (or plants, fungi, etc) into smaller and more recognizable groups. The best known phylum is Chordata, which contains all animals with backbones (fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians). There is also Arthropoda (insects, spiders, crustaceans); Mollusca (snails, squid, clam); Annelida (segmented worms); Echinodermata (starfish, sea urchins) and many, many more.

[Darby]

Right, right, don't feed the trolls, I should know better.

[AFJ]

Gamilia,

Take it from someone who loves science but does not agree with the evolution thing. Your not going to persuade anyone by being inflammatory. Even if you have a completely valid point, you will not be received and you will appear to be a nut.

I do agree that biology can tell us what life does and can tell us how it works but that it can not tell us what the life force is. But your topic is "Biology is not science." Science is knowledge, based on observation, experimentation, and research so in that sense you are making an inflammatory, controversial statement. And you are wasting your time typing because no one is going to take you serious.

Maybe you could have titled it "What is life force?" Let people give their point of view and chill out. We are grown and have gray matter also.

[gamila]

Science is knowledge, based on observation, experimentation,

you need a classificatory system so that you can find and locate the objects if investigation for your knowledge observation research
and biologies classificatory system of species phylum etc is meaningless nonsense as it cant even tell you what species phylum are

[mcar]

Let's recall that we gave attributes of life (growth, reproduction, etc.) and that these characteristics are difinite to say that an organism is living. Now,

gamila:take this definition from wiki

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes ("alive," "living"), from those which do not

It is us (humans) who also gave the definition isn't it? We are consious in our own and that makes us capable of distinguishing the objects with self-sustaining processes; It is us who identify if a thing is indeed living and so we come up to two categories: living things and non-living things. Animals can also do the same but they can't verbalize or make it in black and white.

In biology, it clearly defined the basis for having life: the chemical and cellular nature of all the living things. However, as what I see here is that, studying further life in micro level will still lead us to the chemical nature. That the complexity of life is explained by the properties and behavior of the different biochemicals that made us.

It seems hardly for the most of us to accept the researched facts that life was just explained by such particles. It is just a matter of where you would put yourself, you believe or not, or you accept it but you have other principles greater than it, and there would enter your philosophy and spirituality.

[gamila]

Let's recall that we gave attributes of life

but
you dont know what life is you think you know what life does but not what life is

It is us who identify if a thing is indeed living and so we come up to two categories: living things and non-living things.

but
your categories are meaningless nonsense ie phylum species as you dont know what phylum or species are

two categories: living things and non-living things

you cant even do that
as
you dont even know what life is

[mcar]

Okay, let's try going back to the basics and go to the old, philosophical ways.

there would enter your philosophy and spirituality.

To put it simply, everybody could give a definition for what life is. The definitions you mentioned earlier were just some of the few possibly generated by scientists or non-science people from whatever evidences they had or what made them witnesses of something.

Personally, life for me is a lot of mystery and this mystery is out of the boundary of what sicence could prove, whether it's a fact or theory. From one of the definitions you cited earlier,

now even apart from not telling us what it is that gives life to an organism scientist cant even agree on their definition of life

To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists

There's no doubt that they challenged mystery. Fairly enough, their perseverance is remarkable, we have lots of something to think on but would it be worthy taking the time or trouble to think and make an argument for?

[AstusAleator]

We don't know exactly what an atom or a quark is either - does that mean physics and chemistry aren't science?

Nobody has witnessed firsthand the subsurface forces that account for all of our rocks except extrusive volcanics and sediments. Does this mean Geology is not a science?

Finally:

Biology = study of life

If we knew the exact definition of life, would we need biology?