/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6386448

I studied both, so I will give you my point of view:

That is an unanswerable question.
When the first humans were making fire, was this applied physics? Or chemistry?

All those scientific terms are rather blurred, at least when you look at the past: A medieval analytical chemist was also a magician, a philosopher, a religious mystic, a salesman..

It all boils down on the world and our differnt approaches of trying to understand it, and there are a lot of fields and methods, and they all have their place.

An empirist will use his trial and error.
Then a rationalist comes and says "fuck your experiments, you fail in drawing the right conclusions."
Then a deconstructivist comes and says "fuck your build up structures, you're cheating yourself."
Then an artist comes and says "Fuck your hollow words, you know nothing about aesthetical truths."
..and so on.

There is no "supreme art/science", and everyone who claims otherwise most likely doesn't have a clue about the things he looks down on.