@Barkuti

You better not become a biologist!

A pretty widespread mistake that you also show is that subjects are more important if you can measure them more accurately. Or the other way around: anything that you can not measure accurately is not worth measuring at all.

In reality such relation does not exist: many things that can be measured very accurately are utterly unimportant, while many more things let themselves measure very poorly but are extremely important.

In the last case, dismissing existing information on the basis of a superficial presumption of subjectivity or inaccuracy (which is what you do) is a capital error. Data must always be used keeping the amount of accuracy in mind, but simply ignoring it is a total waste of effort and valuable data.

Many biologal problems are eminently difficult to investigate, there’s not many yes or no answers, and many answers show a relative low accuracy compared to say many physics problems. This has nothing to do with biologists (you seem to value them lower than other scientists) but with the difficult subject that biology is. Yet the answers that biologists give do contain an immense amount of important information, to the amount that currently more than 60% of all scientific research is of biological nature, for good reason.