Your thoughts on biology, astronomy and philosophy?

I wonder about the goals of this project, but sure

Biology

1. the branch of natural science that studies living systems

2. results of biology influence my life now through food, drugs, and pest control

3. I was a biochemistry postdoc for a few years, after completing my PhD in chemistry.

4. like: huge amount of unknown, pick any gene or protein and make a carrier out of it

   dislike: too inexact and too complex to be studied ab initio (unlike chemistry, for example)

5. ethics make human biology harder to study, even if it's most relevant to our daily life

Astronomy

1. the branch of natural science that studies objects located outside Earth's atmosphere.

2. I use GPS daily, and check weather forecasts and enjoy other benefits of space exploration

3. mild amateur interest

4. like: the grand scale, so far beyond the human habitat

   dislike: impractical outside the near space exploration

5. not aware of any ethical problems in astronomy.. perhaps spending billions on new telescopes? that's the general ethical problem of financing fundamental science.

Philosophy

1. Use of logic to derive conclusions from arbitrary statements and examination of the results.

2. It greatly improves my ability to argue on the Internet and sometimes helps to justify my actions to myself.

3. College courses and quite a bit of reading on my own afterwards

4. like: Offers well-researched answers to any common philosophical question with volumes of retorts to any possible counter-argument.

   dislike: has nothing to do with science (other than common history or when it tries to play catch-up by devising new 'philosophies of science' every half a century or so)

5. When a philosophy used to guide people's actions collides with reality, like when Marxism failed to live up to its promise in the Soviet Union, people suffer. And, unlike science, philosophy does not adapt to reality: each philosophy is a logical construct that must be accepted or rejected as a whole.