Why biology is harder than physics
Beginning university students in the sciences usually consider biology to be much easier than physics or chemistry. From their experience in high school, physics has math and formulae that must be understood to be applied correctly, but the study of biology relies mainly on memorization. But in reality biology is much more complex than the physical sciences, and understanding it requires more, not less, brain work.
Biological processes of course are consequences of physics and chemistry, which is why we require our biology students to study the physical sciences. But organisms are also historical entities, and that's where the complexities arise. The facts of physics and chemistry are constant across time and space. Any one carbon atom is the same as any other, and today's carbon atoms are the same as those of a billion years ago. But each organism is different. That's not just a statement that fruit flies are different from house flies. Rather, each fruit fly is different from every other fruit fly alive today, and from every other fruit fly that ever lived, and it's the differences that make biology both thrilling and hard.
The differences have several causes and consequences. One cause is that biology depends on past history, because descendants are not identical to their ancestors. This is true at all scales, and the fundamental reason is that the process of genetic inheritance is not perfect. The DNA sequences we inherit from our parents are never identical copies of their DNA - instead they contain copying errors. So every copy is slightly different, even between two siblings. We are all mutants. These differences also accumulate over the generations, like in the party game Americans call "telephone" and the British call "Chinese whispers".
The second cause is natural selection, which shapes the accumulation of differences, favouring those that improve survival and reproduction and making it harder for disadvantageous differences to persist over the generations. And because most natural selection arises from interactions with other evolving organisms rather than with the relatively stable physical environment, the changes are rapid.
The result is that all biological systems are diverse at all levels. Even high school students are used to the idea of 'biodiversity', meaning the dramatic differences between different species of plants and animals. But the diversity is much more ubiquitous. Within each multicellular species, every individual is genetically different; every fruit fly is genetically different from every other fruit fly. The invisible bacteria turn out to be much more diverse than anyone would have thought. Bacteria isolated from natural environments are so different that even the individuals we would have considered the same species turn out to have about 10% of their genes from unrelated sources. In lab cultures, bacterial mutation rates are high enough that a single ml of culture will contain millions of different genotypes.
Even genetically identical cells are not functionally identical. When a cell divides its molecules are randomly distributed between the two daughters; because 'randomly' does not mean 'evenly', these daughters will have inherited different sets of the proteins and RNAs that carry out their functions. And even if the two cells had identical contents, these contents would still have different interactions - repressors bump into cofactors at different times, DNA polymerase slips or doesn't slip at different points in its progress along a chromosome. Understanding the how and why of biological phenomena thus requires us to consider historical and ecological factors that are many orders of magnitude more complex than those of physical systems.
The critical word is probably 'population'. Biologists rarely try to define it, but they use the term everywhere to refer to similar but not identical organisms or cells (or even molecules) that interact in some way. 'Population thinking', the realization that species are populations, not pure types, is said to have been key to Darwin's insight that members of a species undergo natural selection. And population thinking is probably what makes biology so much more complex than the physical sciences.
Of course we can't consider all of the differences all of the time, so at different levels of study we biologists try to pull out the factors that we think will matter most. Molecular and cell biologists work with populations of molecules, but they keep everything else as identical as possible. Developmental biologists study how cells become different, but they use pure-breeding lines and clones to ensure that the genetic properties of their organisms are as identical as possible. Ecologists pay attention to the big differences between species, but under conditions where they can ignore the differences between the individuals of each species.
I don't think population thinking is addressed in high school biology. We can't really blame their teachers, because the issues probably were never made clear to them either. Instead high school teachers pass on the facts they remember from what they themselves learned at university. The result is that their students enter university expecting their biology education to consist mainly of memorizing lots of new facts.
We instructors want our new students to start focusing on understanding complex processes and interactions, between entities that are themselves populations of diverse and somewhat unpredictable entities. We're thus asking them to set aside all the learning strategies that worked well for them in high school biology, and to learn in a new way. To students this probably seems the height of foolishness, and they're understandably reluctant to take the chance. So one big challenge, for instructors and for our students, is to find ways to ease this transition. We need to give students confidence that deep understanding will bring better grades than will rote memorization, and that saying "What I don't understand is..." is not an admission of failure but the essential first step to this understanding.

18 comments:
I've worked in both theoretical and experimental physics, and now I'm doing experimental microbiology, so I think I'm in a position to comment.
First, physics does deal with the world where the details are different everywhere, and over the years we've developed a lot of tools: thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and in pure mathematics the rather astonishing tools of probability theory and random processes. For today's physicist, situations in which there are lots of varying details are normal, not exceptional.
On the other hand, evolution is different. It requires a separate set of mathematical structures (though not particularly different). Most biologists have never heard of, and certainly don't understand, these structures. Most physicists could, but are hesitant to spend the time: should they really spend a lot of time understanding material that most biologists seem ignorant of?
Despite the fad of noise in biological systems recently, the few people who have asked whether it's actually relevant to the function of the system seem to come up with "no." It's just a fact of life that you try to escape.
It's also a pet peeve of mine that biologists insist on calling their organisms "complex," a very specific, technical term which I have never seen justified in biology. They are complicated, but I have seen no evidence that they are complex. There are problems of graph theory that are complex, but the graphs that biologists insist on writing down of protein interaction and genetic networks aren't sufficiently well posed to take any difficult mathematical problem that appears in them seriously.
As for teaching students, I think the crucial difference between biology and physics education is that biology classes try to impart information to the students. Physics classes have as their sole goal the rewiring of students brains in ways that reflect how reality works. When biology classes switch to that model, students will think it's as hard as physics.
Most biologists have never heard of, and certainly don't understand, these structures. Most physicists could, but are hesitant to spend the time: should they really spend a lot of time understanding material that most biologists seem ignorant of?
Most of the physicists I know have never heard of most aspects of the biological sciences. Guess that means that they are insufficiently equipped to deal with physics...?
But yes, after all, you physicists know lots of math, and math usage is the key criterion for declaring something a 'hard science' and thus a 'true science.' At least those that use lots of math and want to think of themselves as being involved in the 'hard sciences' want us to think.
Maybe we would all be better off if physicists and physical chemists just did everything. Then you can apply your oh-so-complex maths to everything and we will all be duly impressed and awed by your superiority.
Funny thing is, when I discuss biology with the physics professors I know, they are as baffled and confused as I am when they discuss their intricate physics problems. At least the humbler ones.
Hi Fred,
About 'complex'. This appears to be yet another example of a word that has both a general meaning and one or more specific technical meanings. (Think 'theory'.) Lots of confusion arises when a general-meaning use is misinterpreted as a technical-meaning use.
One point of my post was precisely that good biology teaching does not seek to impart information but to rewire students brains to reflect how living things work and evolve.
So why is biology harder than physics?
you said, "The facts of physics and chemistry are constant across time and space. Any one carbon atom is the same as any other, and today's carbon atoms are the same as those of a billion years ago."
I would like to say that the facts of physics are not constant; think about it, why was quantum mechanics invented, why was there Einstein's theory of relativity? These are all results of the facts changing over time. In any science we do not get exact answer, we only get so close to it. What a carbon appear to those in the 1900s will be different to those in the 1930s, the era when quantum mechanics was invented. And their description of carbon changes as well, so what a carbon is to us has changed.
Well....I think what Fred meant is that "you can do physics without knowing biology, but you can't do it the other way around." that claim is actually supported by this article. So, Doppelganger's refuting claim is not against the point.
And as to math usage, honestly you cannot find a more precise language than mathematics. It makes physics a "harder" and a "truer" science NOT because that's what people want you to think, but because physics is the most PRECISE of all three sciences (and I do not include math here, that's another debate)
And...there is no superiority in sciences, only which one is more fundamental. Unfortunately, if you lived without physicists, you wouldn't be using your computer right now.
I'll chime in on this again, since I think there was a misunderstanding. Reading your post's title while pretending that I'm an undergraduate inserts subliminal instances of the word 'class' after 'biology' and 'physics.' The problem is that for readers coming in from the outside world, this looks like a blanket statement.
You can do physics without knowing biology. You can do biology without knowing physics (most biologists do, as my coworkers give me daily proof).
Interacting molecules generally fall under the rubric of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. There is a very particular, probabilistic mindset that goes with this which is extremely important.
Would an intro biology course based on really making students understand how to handle ensembles and populations, and giving them the tools to actually do so (coalescent theory, some basis of statistical mechanics, a bunch of other stuff) be harder than what is taught in intro physics? Yes! It would!
The problem is that you can't do thermodynamics or statistical mechanics until you have completely internalized basic Newtonian mechanics and probability. You can't handle coalescents and Wright-Fisher processes without internalizing the mindset of probability (the physics can slide).
The physicists who do experiments on how to teach people physics discovered that unless you're very careful to root out a student's own world view, what you tell them gets completely misinterpreted. This is even harder for probability.
So an introductory course that tried to get students thinking in ensembles of molecules and populations of organisms would be harder than the standard introductory physics course, for both students and instructors, but that's because it involves mental tools that the physics degree spreads across years of study.
Well....I think what Fred meant is that "you can do physics without knowing biology, but you can't do it the other way around." that claim is actually supported by this article. So, Doppelganger's refuting claim is not against the point.
Um, OK, I don't recall trying to write a 'refuting claim', I think my point was that for some reason, some physicists like Ross seem to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. And OF COURSE you can "do" biology without knowing physics. Biology is a pretty broad field, and I doubt many field biologists give one whit about physics.
And as to math usage, honestly you cannot find a more precise language than mathematics. It makes physics a "harder" and a "truer" science NOT because that's what people want you to think, but because physics is the most PRECISE of all three sciences (and I do not include math here, that's another debate)
Please provide some relevant documentation, if you can, that 'precision' is a prerequisite for considering something a 'hard' science.
And...there is no superiority in sciences, only which one is more fundamental. Unfortunately, if you lived without physicists, you wouldn't be using your computer right now.
January 14, 2008 1:29 PM,
Maybe, but I could sure live without arrogant, self-important prigs.
You can do physics without knowing biology. You can do biology without knowing physics (most biologists do, as my coworkers give me daily proof).
And my physicists coworkers show me everyday that they do not understand biology. What is your point?
Interacting molecules generally fall under the rubric of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. There is a very particular, probabilistic mindset that goes with this which is extremely important.
Why would a "mindset" be of any importance to interacting molecules?
Would an intro biology course based on really making students understand how to handle ensembles and populations, and giving them the tools to actually do so (coalescent theory, some basis of statistical mechanics, a bunch of other stuff) be harder than what is taught in intro physics? Yes! It would!
The problem is that you can't do thermodynamics or statistical mechanics until you have completely internalized basic Newtonian mechanics and probability. You can't handle coalescents and Wright-Fisher processes without internalizing the mindset of probability (the physics can slide).
Which, clearly, Fred Ross, Physicist, has done!
AMAZING!
The physicists who do experiments on how to teach people physics discovered that unless you're very careful to root out a student's own world view, what you tell them gets completely misinterpreted. This is even harder for probability.
So an introductory course that tried to get students thinking in ensembles of molecules and populations of organisms would be harder than the standard introductory physics course, for both students and instructors, but that's because it involves mental tools that the physics degree spreads across years of study.
Providing, of course, all biologists will need to know such things in mathematically precise detail. Which they do not. And I suspect not even all physicists would have to. It seems very easy for some people to believe that whatever it is they do is the most important thing. And it is, to them. But it is not to everyone else, and acting as if it should be often rubs people the wrong way.
Doppelganger, get a clue. The descriptor "hard science" actually has nothing to do with "difficulty". It is not a display of physics chauvinism, but rather a division between quantitative/accurate sciences from more nebulous fields that do not carry with them the same mathematical precision.
No need to be jealous just because math chose physics :p
Doppelganger points out a very common misconception, that the detailed, mathematical version --- the careful imparting of a formalism --- is a slower way to build understanding than a verbal description. The opposite is actually true.
Formalism provides a way for students to run "experiments" without getting lost in word games. This is among the best ways to develop intuition, as you can continually correct it. It provides a precise relation among the concepts without baggage and ambiguity, the exorcism of which otherwise requires a great deal of considered prose.
Afterwards, formalism provides a powerful tool. Anyone who doubts this need only look at high school algebra. Similarly facile algebras can be constructed for logical argument, tying knots in strings, and symmetries. Geneticists use an implicit algebra of this kind to think about manipulating DNA sequences.
I suspect most of Doppelganger's hostility comes from the (very real) language barrier between physics and biology. It took me a year and a half in a biology lab before I understood what people were saying to me, another six months before I could translate what I was thinking into words they could understand. For the listener, the problems of another field often seem trivial because all he can appreciate is a projection of the field onto his own. For the speaker, this reception is galling.
This has now degenerated into a flame war, and I'm ducking out. Apologies to Rosie for clogging up her comments section.
Au contraire, Rosie feels honoured by all these comments.
qbit said that 'the descriptor "hard science" is a division between quantitative/accurate sciences from more nebulous fields that do not carry with them the same mathematical precision.' (Sorry, there should be an elipsis in there somewhere.)
But although there is less mathematical precision about the elements of 'soft' sciences, they need much more statistical rigor than do fields will less intrinsic variation.
Doppelganger, get a clue. The descriptor "hard science" actually has nothing to do with "difficulty". It is not a display of physics chauvinism, but rather a division between quantitative/accurate sciences from more nebulous fields that do not carry with them the same mathematical precision.
Right - how silly of kmew to have interpreted this:
Most biologists have never heard of, and certainly don't understand, these structures. Most physicists could, but are hesitant to spend the time: should they really spend a lot of time understanding material that most biologists seem ignorant of?
As physics chauvenism... I must just be so sensitive, and yes, thank you, I WILL get a clue thanks to your keen insights.
No need to be jealous just because math chose physics :p
Guess you're not familiar with population genetics...
Doppelganger points out a very common misconception, that the detailed, mathematical version --- the careful imparting of a formalism --- is a slower way to build understanding than a verbal description. The opposite is actually true.
Oh please set me strait Freddie!
Formalism provides a way for students to run "experiments" without getting lost in word games.
Word games - you mean understanding the concepts they are applying your formalism to?
Afterwards, formalism provides a powerful tool. Anyone who doubts this need only look at high school algebra. Similarly facile algebras can be constructed for logical argument, tying knots in strings, and symmetries. Geneticists use an implicit algebra of this kind to think about manipulating DNA sequences.
Of course, one first needs to know what DNA sequences are. I cannot count the number of times I've seen those in the 'hard sciences' prattle on about the 'amino acids in DNA' and the like...
But no, do go on...
I suspect most of Doppelganger's hostility comes from the (very real) language barrier between physics and biology. It took me a year and a half in a biology lab before I understood what people were saying to me, another six months before I could translate what I was thinking into words they could understand. For the listener, the problems of another field often seem trivial because all he can appreciate is a projection of the field onto his own. For the speaker, this reception is galling.
My 'hostility' comes from the all too real and quite common arrogance of those in the 'hard sciences' - or more commonly, engineering - thinking that they have special insights into biology, when in fact, they do not.
I know this is a very old "thread", but I wanted to share my sentiment on Doppelganger's attitude here. Instead of responding properly with reason, he/she responds condescendingly with baseless ridicule and insults:
"Maybe, but I could sure live without arrogant, self-important prigs."
"Maybe we would all be better off if physicists and physical chemists just did everything. Then you can apply your oh-so-complex maths to everything and we will all be duly impressed and awed by your superiority."
"Which, clearly, Fred Ross, Physicist, has done!
AMAZING!"
Looking back on the comments, it is not Fred Ross who is arrogant - but it is rather you, my good sir. Get off your high horse.
Physics can be applied to biology. Biology cannot be applied to physics.
There is no point in comparing between biology and physics. They are two different science.
From wikipedia:
"Physics is the study of matter and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force"
"biology is the science that studies living organisms (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism)"
I myself am a student for mechanical engineer.
Everyone knows that gravitational law explains how earth pulls matter to it's surface.
If earth was a living organisms, which could think, what makes you think that physical law was a good way to describe it's nature?
The real question is whether living organisms can be explained by mathematical equations.
I personally think, NO.
There is no matematical or physic law which can explain a primitive life form such as a animalcule.
The problem is that living organisms change over time, even if someone were able to find a matematical equation to explain a certain living organism, it would probably would be correct for a very short time.
It is hard to measure events which are not consistent with time. I personally think that biology is more restricted due to this fact.
I think that physics is much more harder to learn, but biology is much more harder to research...
Post a Comment