>>12064948If we use the extended definition then we have to admit that philosophy, art history, philology, psychology, linguistics, economics, engineering, mathematics and logic are all sciences. This is no longer a useful definition, as now we're just discussing formalized disciplines with highly technical procedures for studying various abstract structures. Even theology could under these criteria be considered a science which is to say the least a little disconcerting.
>you mention accuracyAccuracy issuing from quantitatively grounded, logically and mathematically consistent physical theory. The link between these things is interdependent, the definition is designed to be compact and exclusive of the "exact sciences" as people used to call Logic, Geometry, Algebra.
>do accurate protein binding and folding. accurately model what a gene will result in a trait that isn't simple mendelianYou're repeating what I said back at me. There is already an accurate theory for the mechanism that leads to basic congenital diseases that describes the unfolding of the physical process from gene to polypeptide chain to tissue structure to gross phenotype. That is physical theory manifest and is perfectly accurate for the sake of describing the system. If you want to know the fine details of it then of course you need statistical physics and heavy duty computation but that is literally true of solid state physics and HEP and every fucking scientific field in existence. It's just more frequently a problem in biology because of the funny nonlinear active matter systems and all of that, you understand?
>mostly correlative but predictive like economics and psychologyEconomics and psychology don't study real structures and don't have foundational theory, most economics and psychology papers of foundational import do not replicate, and do not have a coherent description to offer of physical systems. The Hodgkin-Huxley model replicates and is coherent.
