Here's my critique of biochemistry according to the criterion I put forth:
>
>
1) It assumes that the objects under study act according to laws of
nature, not according to volition
2) It is empirically based
3) It is experimentally based.
4) It makes broad predictions from a few basic principals
5) It makes precise predictions
6) It is reductionistic
7) It is synthetic
8) It is falsifiable by additional experiments
9) It survives as a special case of the newer theory
>
> Let us look at economics in the light of these rules.
>
1) Definitely. Even though there is a book: the selfish gene, noone assumes
that cells, parts of cells, DNA, etc. have will or volition
2) Definitely. Introspection is not used as data
3) Again definitely. My biochemist friends are experimentalists
4) The results on this are mixed. There is still a lot of cut and try in
biochemistry. But, basic theoretical models are now used in drug research
and development, and the defining of the human genome is a significant step
in the direction of broad based fundamental rules.
5) In some cases, definitely so. In other cases, no.
6) Definitely: it reduces to chemistry, which reduces to physics
7) I'd say yes. Different fields have been synthesized into modern
biochemistry. Cell study in biology, genetics, etc.
8) Definitely, controlling variables is straightforward enough to allow for
the falsification of theories.
9) Yes. I'd argue that the genetics of 100 years ago survive as a special
case of modern biochemistry.
>
So, lets summarize. We have 1=definitely, 2=definitely, 3=definitely,
4=mixed
5=mixed, 6=definitely, 7=generally yes 8=definitely, and 9=yes.
Not a perfect score, but definitely strong enough for biochemistry to be
called a science.
Dan M.
