This is something that I’ve recently noticed. I noticed that when it comes to interests in the sciences, people are very life science vs. physical sciences. For example, I run into a lot of people that love biology but cannot stand Physics. On the other hand, there’s people (like me) that love Physics and Chemistry, but could care less about Biology. I have yet to meet someone that genuinely likes both.
I also noticed this in math too (Abstract math vs Discrete math)
Why is this? Have you met anyone that excelled in both?
I did my BS in molecular biology and am currently finishing up my MS in mechanical engineering. I still enjoy the life sciences, but after graduating, eventually decided I liked math/physics/engineering mechanics more than biology, and that I wanted to approach problems in biology/medicine from an engineering perspective.
But I have noticed the phenomenon you mention. I’ve found that the vast majority of my engineering/math/physics friends and fellow students tend to be logic-driven, ordered people. Biology and life sciences are inherently messy. I don’t have any speculations about the reverse, though.
I really love chemistry and biology (specifically microbiology); I took a semester of physics and think I would’ve enjoyed it more with a decent teacher (this was in high school).
I feel like I know a lot of people who like both biology and chemistry - and there is biochemistry and organic chemistry, entire sections of chemistry that function something like a life science. There’s also medical physics.
I think people tend to draw divisions because it’s easier for them to conceptualize of fields that way, but it’s not necessarily a useful way to think about science.
Personally I always liked physics because it’s basically really, really applied math - but I realize now that chemistry can be that way, too. It was just never taught that way to me in high school, whereas physics was.
There are certainly very different research cultures and attitudes in chemistry, biology and physics.
It will take a lot to describe those differences, but once you are in one, you will know quickly whether you are right fit or not for one of those.
I was involved in a multidisciplinary project involving microbology, biochemistry, material science, and computational science. After one of the meetings, a biologist commented to me, “I cannot imagine how one would study as complicated subject as physics. ‘What is Life?’ How simple is that?”
I could not answer. Although I agree that ‘What is Life?’ is a beutiful question, I consider it far from a simple one but the most complex of all.
I guess I fall in this category; I love chemistry and biology, and I feel kind of neutral towards physics. I used to hate physics more, but I’ve recently realized that I’m actually good at physics under a qualified teacher (I had a terrible experience in AP Physics bc of a poor teacher, but taking college physics has been an infinitely better experience).
I like how physics is so logic driven- many of the principles build off of each other very neatly and beautifully, but at the same time I find that following the chain of logic and remembering all the conditions and relations takes a lot of trying and exhausting patience. In that way, I enjoy chemistry and biology much more because they are often divided up into neater sections conceptually (though this isn’t the case all the time of course).
I also have the privilege of learning some physical chemistry as a freshman, and it’s pretty neat to see how physics and chemistry overlap so closely in many ways- science is incredibly interconnected so sometimes it does seem a shame that people divide up the sciences like they do.
I like both subjects, but prefer thinking about topics with a physical scientist’s perspective. I know what you mean, but there are plenty of people that like both. Biochemists and biophysicists are legitimate careers.
Some people are more quantitative than others. Some people are more satisfied with concepts; others prefer observables. I like the logic of math and chemistry - it allows both interpolation and extrapolation. I appreciate biology but it doesn’t come as easily to me because there is less logic, and certainly not much scope for extrapolation. The logic of math and chemistry is still tied to observables, which is satisfying for me. The logic of much of modern physics is interesting but often too theoretical to satisfy my brain, the way it is constructed.
I think of the scientific areas as a continuum from biology (still largely phenomenological) to physics (most theoretical). The underpinnings of biology are provided by chemistry; biological processes are primarily driven by chemistry. In turn, chemistry is driven by physics; interactions and reactions are explained by physics. Some people’s brains are “balanced” enough to appreciate a broader range of “understanding”; some of us have brains that are happiest with a particular range of logic.
I know PhD scientists who are well versed in the intricacies of biological pathways but can’t understand how atoms interact. I know others who can quantify the kinetics of complicated chemical reactions with ease but are completed uninterested in any biology other than that immediately relevant to their system. And I know biophysicists who are much more physicist than biologist, and others who are more biologists pushing buttons than physicists.