• ayyy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I read that as the subtext still being sexist because Biology tends to have more women in the field compared to Physics.

    • Nikelui@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Nah, it’s typical university faction wars. Engineers say crap about architects, mathematicians sneer on physicists and so on…

      • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I heard a joke once that a physical chemistry experiment will have 1000 data points per trend line; I organic chemistry will have 10 data points, and biochem will have 2 data points.

        I bet to biochemists it’s very insulting. Back to the comment in the anti-acknowledgements, that was insulting without even being funny.

        I like the ones that are symmetrical, like math thinks that physics is easy, and physics things that math is too unreal (I don’t remember the jokes)

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          a physical chemistry experiment will have 1000 data points per trend line; I organic chemistry will have 10 data points, and biochem will have 2 data points.

          There is an element of truth in this, but that one biochem datapoint probably took more money and (wo)manpower than a hundred phys chem datapoints. Which is sad, because biological systems are usually more complex, and therefore more ‘noisy’, needing more datapoints for a definitive result. Medical studies get a lot of datapoints for obvious reasons, and because they can afford to do it thanks to Merck et al.