>>10836890Idk, what does it say after "neuro"?
On serious note, you guys need to stop demonstrating the Dunning-Krueger effect by constantly debating what is an isn't a "real" science like you're some elitist high IQ authority on science. Half of you people aren't even remotely involved in the scientific sphere, and really have little if nothing at all you should have said about science. I just today met up with an aquaintence of mine currently studying biochemistry at the uni, he explained how he was able to measure enzyme density through detecting reflection of UV light through a solution. This made me realize just how much sophistication and studying it takes in that field, so it is absolutely a science, contrary to what this board believes.
Here's an easy way to check if something is a science:
A) Are there any certainties in what we know in the field, without room for new experiments to prove otherwise?
B) Is progress in this field made through rigerous testing of hypotheses?
C) Is the aspects of the field rooted in exploring the propeties of fundemental phenomena in the universe?
If A is false, and B and C is true, you have science.
