is it possible to do science without equations ?
>>8141808
Yes, absolutely
biology
>>8141808
Well I don't know about you but I'd have to say that this here diagram doesn't tell you you have to use equations.
>>8141808
that's what we commonly call "pseudo-science"
Darwin didn't use no equations
Yah ain't gonna need no math to be a scientist yo
>>8141839
No, pseudo-science is characterized by two things:
>lack of rigor
>lack of revision
It's entirely possible to confirm/reject/revise a hypothesis based on experimental data, and never see or learn an equation. And that process is literally the only single thing that defines science.
tl;dr Grow up, you stupid undergrad.
>>8141808
It's possible. It's not like science by definition requires Mathematics, it is merely unreasonably effective. It's just good luck interpreting data without equations.
>>8141811
Mathematical biology is the next big thing for math. And good biologists should be able to apply statistics.
>>8141808
Yeah. Look up Michael Faraday.
>>8141915
oh sure.
How do you reject a hypothesis that makes no prediction? (prediction = mathematical prediction).
You are fooling no one, you know nothing about science.
>>8141926
came here to post this.
Faraday was an uneducated lay person. Yet he had the intelligence and abstract thinking needed to do some important science.
>>8141925
With do statistics, do you mean p-values and linear regression or actual statistics?
Does chemistry count or nah?
What about P-Values?
I would argue yes, in my field.... But we still do T-Tests and R-Values.
Fucking anova
>>8141939
What I mean is that when trying to analyze a certain kind of data with certain kind of dependencies, they should be able to know which method to use and how to use it. It really should go beyond p-values and linear regression. You get a lot of shit science just because people don't know how to do statistics and simply apply methods until the data says what they want it to say. I'm not into statistics myself. I'm simply relaying information I've gathered from my math prof who teaches upper year statistics courses.
>>8141915
Not if you're talking about math or physics tho
>>8141811
equations are applied to every facet of biology.
your meme rustles my biologically trained jimmies.
>>8141824
you just posted an image depicting an algorithm tho
>>8141808
>Does exposure to hammers kill hermit crabs?
>Take some hermit crabs, smash with hammer
>Hermit crabs are dead
>Take some hermit crabs and do not smash with hammer
>Hermit crabs are alive
>Exposure to hammers proves lethal to hermit crabs
Hypothesis stated, experiment conducted with control and test group, and conclusions drawn
Sounds like science without math to me.
>>8141808
Kind of. Before it became quantitative, physics was observational. The ancient Greeks saw ships appear to go down as they sailed away and concluded that the earth is round. People experienced gravity, but probably wouldn't have been able to explain it outside of "it pulls me down" or at best "it pulls me towards the center of the earth." Much of medicine would have developed the same. Vaccines, penicillin, and germ theory all developed without reliance on mathematics.
>>8141915
>2016
>clinging to the oxymoron empirical '''''''''''''''''''''''''''proof''''''''''''''''''''''
>>8145189
yes goy, believe what complete strangers tell you
>>8141808
Not worthwhile science
