Favourite type of science?

Page 2 of 5 [ 80 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Favourite type of science?

Biology	7%	[ 6 ]
Chemistry	10%	[ 8 ]
Physics	30%	[ 24 ]
Ecology	1%	[ 1 ]
Astronomy	14%	[ 11 ]
Meteorology	0%	[ 0 ]
Psychology	7%	[ 6 ]
Neuroscience	6%	[ 5 ]
Animal Science	1%	[ 1 ]
Zoology	4%	[ 3 ]
Botany	2%	[ 2 ]
Food Science	2%	[ 2 ]
Other (specify)	15%	[ 12 ]

Total votes : 81

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

12 Sep 2011, 6:12 pm

I have no clue what "animal science" is supposed to be. And Zoology seems like a long shot. I don't think Zoologists use empirical testing much, preferring to focus on the observation half of the scientific method. "Food science" sounds like a degree your community college would make up.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,949
Location:

12 Sep 2011, 6:15 pm

Other: "All of the above"

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

12 Sep 2011, 6:20 pm

And psychology is absolutely not a science; don't make me get on my soap box to explain why.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,949
Location:

12 Sep 2011, 6:35 pm

Biokinetica wrote:

And psychology is absolutely not a science; don't make me get on my soap box to explain why.

No need. Behavioral psychology still uses the scientific method to find out why people behave the way they do, but it seems that clinical psychology has been polluted by every form of New-Age self-help woo-woo you could possibly imagine.

(i.e., The former uses "Skinner Boxes" while the latter seems to see an over-abundance of Tarot Cards.)

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

12 Sep 2011, 10:29 pm

Biokinetica wrote:

And computer science is science. It can be either a formal or empirical science of information & algorithms,

Algorithms are mathematical objects. Information theory is a mathematical subject. If mathematicians study large prime numbers using computers, are they doing science? Nope. And neither is a computer scientist doing science when they try to find out something about an algorithm empirically.

Quote:

and contrary to popular belief, rarely deals with the device you're typing on now.

Yes.

Also contrary to popular belief, 'science' is not a holy word or a complement, it's a descriptive word. Some things fit in the category, and some things don't. That computer science isn't a science doesn't make it less interesting or intellectually demanding.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Sep 2011, 12:53 am

Ancalagon wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

And computer science is science. It can be either a formal or empirical science of information & algorithms,

Correct. Computer science is, ultimately, a branch of applied mathematics. It may be less formal and rigorous than pure mathematics, but it is still not science.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

aspiegirl2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,442
Location: Washington, USA

13 Sep 2011, 2:56 am

That was an extremely hard question. I love learning, and I'm fascinated with lots of different branches of science. I ended up choosing psychology, however, as that was what I majored in at my university. I love learning new things everyday. It's difficult not being in school anymore because I loved going to classes so much to learn new stuff (although I could do without the exams lol).

_________________
I'm 24 years old and live in WA State. I was diagnosed with Asperger's at 9. I received a BS in Psychology in 2011 and I intend to help people with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, either through research, application, or both. On the ?Pursuit of Aspieness?.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

13 Sep 2011, 4:23 pm

Orwell wrote:

It may be less formal and rigorous than pure mathematics,

I really don't see how the theoretical side could be less formal or rigorous than mathematics, since it is mathematics.

The less theoretical side isn't math at all, which is why I compared it to engineering.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Sep 2011, 6:50 pm

Orwell wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

And computer science is science. It can be either a formal or empirical science of information & algorithms,

Correct. Computer science is, ultimately, a branch of applied mathematics. It may be less formal and rigorous than pure mathematics, but it is still not science.

Best to call it an art or discipline. Like architecture.

ruveyn

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

13 Sep 2011, 7:50 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

And computer science is science. It can be either a formal or empirical science of information & algorithms,

You use the word "empirically" and then ignore its meaning. If you can observe the soundness of an algorithm by using it on real 'data' (physical objects), than you are observing and testing your ideas empirically. Also, both you and Orwell assume only the abstract of "information". "Information" entails mass and energy no different from electrons. You won't find one physicist with a job who doesn't think protons are information.

You're trying to use the easy reasoning of propositional logic that says If math != science and computer science = math, then computer science != science.

What you're not doing is considering the definition of science, who's crux is empirical observation, testing, and quantification of data. You also ignore how computer science is actually practiced today. All algorithms do eventually get tested empirically (assuming somebody's working on them in the first place, of course). This is why people need to stop with the propositional logic. You only see half the picture.

Quote:

and contrary to popular belief, rarely deals with the device you're typing on now.

I never alluded to any of this. You're talking to yourself, now.

Last edited by Biokinetica on 13 Sep 2011, 8:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

13 Sep 2011, 8:02 pm

Fnord wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

And psychology is absolutely not a science; don't make me get on my soap box to explain why.

Nothing in psychology is science. Nothing observed in psychological study (no matter how it's conducted) can be verified by others through empirical information gathering & tests. Those Skinner Boxes also yield little empirical data, because no process in the animal brain can be quantified.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

13 Sep 2011, 9:09 pm

in that an algorhytm is actually a specific phenomena of cascading electrons within a silicon die used for manipulating other electrons one could say one is empirically observing that functions and how to manipulate it.

science to me is the accumulation of knowledge in a systematic and an internally consistent logical manner, one can argue what is and what's not but in the end what matters is the mindset involved.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

13 Sep 2011, 9:23 pm

Oodain wrote:

Precisely. Empirical observation & testing can happen at any level so long as the tools to do it are present. In computer science, it's silicon dies, electricity and whatever operand you happen to be manipulating and/or extracting data from. This is no different from using solutions in petri dishes to manipulate the algorithm the universe uses in protein folding to generate life. They're really no different from each other, which is why the fields of computational biology and bioinformatics exist.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

13 Sep 2011, 9:25 pm

Biokinetica wrote:

You use the word "empirically" and then ignore its meaning.

Empirical =/= science. They are related, but not identical.

Quote:

real 'data' (physical objects)

Data is an abstraction, not a physical thing.

Quote:

Also, both you and Orwell assume only the abstract of "information". "Information" entails mass and energy no different from electrons.

Information is abstract. Energy, mass, and electrons may sometimes be used to encode information, but that doesn't mean that information is physical.

Quote:

You won't find one physicist with a job who doesn't think protons are information.

This doesn't make sense. They have a mathematical description, but that's not the same as being information.

Quote:

You're trying to use the easy reasoning of propositional logic that says If math != science and computer science = math, then computer science != science.

No, I said that there are 2 parts to the discipline of computer science, one of which is a branch of mathematics and one of which is more or less a branch of engineering. Ruveyn brought up "an art or discipline", and that's a fair description of part of it also. Mathematics, a discipline, and engineering are all non-sciences.

Quote:

What you're not doing is considering the definition of science, who's crux is empirical observation, testing, and quantification of data.

Of the natural world.

Not of abstractions.

Quote:

I never alluded to any of this. You're talking to yourself, now.

I was clarifying for anyone who might have been confused on that point, possibly including (but not limited to) you.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

13 Sep 2011, 9:28 pm

Computer animation, space and science fiction specifically. So I guess geometry and astronomy.

Last edited by shrox on 13 Sep 2011, 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

13 Sep 2011, 9:41 pm

Oodain wrote:

There is quite a lot in computer science that is purely abstract (can you tell me what f=O(g) means in terms of electrons? of course not, since it has nothing to do with them). Of the stuff that isn't, it really isn't about particular electrons or electrical circuits. The same algorithm can be embodied in code in many different ways, and the same piece of code can be run on computers whose circuits are completely different.

It really isn't about electrons or silicon, those just happen to be very conventient ways for us to do computation.

Quote:

but in the end what matters is the mindset involved.

I think mindset is a pretty good way of looking at it. I think scientists have a different mindset from engineers who have a different mindset than mathematicians.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Page 2 of 5 [ 80 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Favourite type of science? Post Reply New Topic

Favourite type of science?