I have no interest in many hard sciences because much of what is propagated is subjective with opinionated undertones involving holistic 'packaged-deal' availability-heuristics, or cookie-cutter following. For example and prime example: evolution. Yes, there is evidence of 'micro-evolution' which I know to be a terrible word for adaptation, i.e. changes in a specific kind = a dog is still a dog if it changes into a dog with different qualities and properties. I can agree with adaptation. With this stated there has been no evidence what-so-ever involving macro-evolution, such as a dog turning into a pelican. Yes, I know the definition of evolution - quite literally meaning, 'the change in ratio of alleles' or 'the change in allele frequency within a population', but this is not what anyone that I've ever met actually means by evolution. What is truly meant by evolution is, everything evolved out of the slime from a singled-cell organism, from random changes involving time and chance...and I just don't see the hard evidence anywhere for this nonsense. It's not in the fossils, nor is it conformable within the scientific method. Yet it is well accepted by a great majority. As it stands, I reject this type of thinking.
Okay, now to the area of study which I have reason to be here, botany! Although, I would be considered more of an herbalist, survivalist, and bushcraft novice, I enjoy the science of such things also. So, if there is any hard science that I would devote my walk on this planet to, it would be botany. If anyone would like an explanation...I would love to chat.