If I give a dollar and punch you in the face, that you've benefited from the dollar doesn't mean I haven't harmed you.
THIS is what I mean by ambiguity. You could also argue for the benefits from cancer, but I wouldn't.
"Soft" because it's not "hard" like the physical sciences.
I know what you meant... but why?
FYI, "hard" science distinguishes from
social science. Physical science distinguishes from natural science. Biology is a natural science so, even though you're right that it isn't a physical science, it is a "hard" science.
I've always heard it this way: There are three kinds of science: 1. the physical sciences, which are "hard"; 2. the biological sciences, which are "soft"; and 3. and the social sciences, which are too thin to be either. Another way to look at it is having only two categories: 1. the physical sciences”the hard sciences, and 2. the life sciences”the soft sciences. (Who says wiki is always right, anyway?)
There is nothing ambiguous about the definition of parasite that is necessary for allowing for the host to benefit in some way.
Predator-prey relationships can be ambiguous, you know. I watched a film once of a snake attacking a frog, but it got hold of only one of the frog's legs. So the frog turned around and ate the snake. But for a while it was hard to tell who was the luncher and who was the lunchee. Things are not as cut-and-dried as they are over in the hard sciences, except for quantum mechanics, of course.
”FTF
I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.
™ Version 4.2