[LeifCarrotson]

Some would group biology into a soft science because the margins for error must be relaxed or softened; one cannot eliminate potentially confounding factors from a biological experiment because each organism is unique and fractally complex.

Another categorization is the "natural sciences" and the "social sciences". Natural science is often split into "life science" and "physical science", again because biology is difficult.

[BitwiseFool]

I also wonder if we can take it a step further and apply a sort of "instance" versus "principle" science. 'Instance Science' is composed of studies that are trying to observe or experiment with something that is heavily influenced by uncontrollable variables and is highly likely to change. In some sense, the results are more like a snapshot in time than a durably reproducible phenomenon. What we typically call "soft science" and all those studies facing a reproducibility crisis fall into this bucket. Instance Science maps poorly onto "the real world".

Contrast that with 'Principle Science' in which studies are not affected by nearly as many uncontrollable variables and is more closely related to demonstrable cause-and-effect phenomena. The best examples are chemistry and physics. Biology is tricky to categorize in this because I see elements of both in it. For instance, a study investigating whether or not taking an increased dose of Vitamin B helps energy would most certainly belong in Instance Science, but the underlying mechanism of how Vitamin B is involved in the Krebs Cycle is Principle Science.

This idea is still in it's infancy and I'm curious to know people's thoughts on this distinction I'm trying to elaborate on.