|
Re "hard" science - anything you measure in an objective way to build on a knowledge base fits into that realm. The bio-sciences are so complex that there will have to be one heck of a lot of measurements made in order to quantify things as rigorously as, say, theoretical physics. However, if you look at a science such as geology or meteorology, which are solid sciences with "hard" applications you can see how they still are very fuzzy. We just don't know enough to say this earthquake or that hurricane will occur/act/be expressed in an objectively foreseeable manner.
I live with a Phd/Md who comments from time to time how that dual training impacts her more global, considered approach to both research and patient care. If you are willing to put 20 years into a post-secondary education I'm willing to bet you will learn to cover a lot of bases.
Whether you feel the psych sciences are bunk or not, they definitely provide quantifiable help for a lot of people who are in terrible distress. And being able to zero in on genetic markers and determine ever-more efficacious management tools for people in distress is a real science. One person responds to a course of treatment differently than another - this is more a case of complex structure differences inside the body. Different reactions mean we need to learn more, not that the science behind the treatment is invalid or weak. These innate differences between people are exacerbated by environmental factors - Nurture and Nature both having an effect.
BTW, I never knew there was an inducible class of genes which express themselves differently depending upon experience and environment. Probably obvious to some, not to me. Apparently it is a huge field of study with awesome possibilities.
__________________
And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ... 
I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca
|