/sci/ - Science & Math

Rank as in... typical tier fashion or in purity?
xkcd already did the purity scale.

Mathematics
Computer Science
Physics
Engineering
Chemistry
Astronomy
Biology
Polisci
Psych
Health

Chemistry
Physics
Math
Biomedical Science
Astronomy
Biology
Computer Science
Political Science
Psychology

inb4 obvious pharmfag is obvious

By coolness, I'd go with:

Astronomy
Physics
Mathematics
Chemistry
Biology
Engineering
Health Sciences
Psychology
Political Science

But by usefulness (non-practical included) I'd go with:

Mathematics
Engineering
Physics
Astronomy
Chemistry
Health Sciences
Biology
Political Science
Psychology

but those don't have nearly the separation that the first list does. Also, astronomy explains a lot of stuff on earth, so it goes above chemistry, which, by itself, wouldn't be able to determine where elements came from.

>>1601074
Favorite to least favorite.

Physics
Astronomy
Psych
Math
Chem
Political
Health
Bio
Eng

Mathematics
Physics
Astronomy
Chemistry
Health Sciences
Psychology
Political Science
Biology

I left out Engineering because it's way too broad. Some engineers like EEs are high on the chart, but others like civil are shittier than shit tier.

>>1601087
Oh, Computer Science goes third and first on those two lists, respectively.

>>1601087
I don't get why people think astronomy is cool. It seems incredibly boring to me. Just a bunch of rocks moving around each other in a vacuum.

TIERS ARE FOR QUEERS

>>1601101
The Earth and everything in contains is just a "rock floating in a vacuum".

Enjoy your false sense of self-importance.

>>1601101
It's all about using your imagination.

>>1601101

You see that? That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

>>1601111
Yeah but the Earth is accessible enough that we can study things that are actually interesting. I mean sure astronomy would be cool if we could study something as complex as life on other planets but we can't so it sucks.

Mathematics is not a science. Ever wonder why it's called Science & Math?

But anyway, Mathematics is not rooted in experimental evidence. It is a language, not a science.

>>1601118
Holy hell I'm impressed. Did you do that on the spot?

>>1601101
>rocks
Quasars, pulsars, black holes, nebulae, supernova, hypernova, colliding galaxies, solar system/galaxy formation, vast, VAST, unfathomable distances and timescales, all of it is fascinating.

The origin of stuff. All stuff.

There's also spectroscopy, which in itself is just amazing because we're able to get so much data from what seems like so little.

Did you know the rings around neptune (or uranus I forget which) were found by scientists trying to determine its atmosphere by watching a star go behind it and measuring the light that came through as a function of time? I just like that stuff.

>>1601119
Isn't it more interesting to know that a terrestrial planet like Earth is common throughout the universe? Just think, all the things you find interesting on Earth, every creature, every ancient civilization, every piece of technology, could be found somewhere in the universe.

>>1601127
>he's never heard of the pale blue dot speech

Lol, youtube it.

>>1601127
It's Carl Sagan. youtube for 'pale blue dot'.

>>1601131
That's not astronomy. That's statistics.

>>1601119
Spectroscopy, dude. We can see if an atmosphere has oxygen in it. Oxygen is not stable in the atmosphere, so something has to be continually putting it there, like plant life stealing the C from CO2 and ejecting the O2 waste. So yes, we can check for life on other planets.

>>1601138
Every science uses math. Just because physics uses linear algebra doesn't make it any less physical.

That's why mathfags here have such big egos, they feel superior as it sets the foundations for every science (excluding political science, because that's not a real science).

>>1601143
So? We can't study it. We know that life almost certainly exists on other plants already, so what's the point? Astronomy is boring because our means are so limited.

>>1601119
So a speck of dust which contains so little is more interesting than Everything that has ever existed, now that's not narrow minded at all. Hell if the universe is an open universe it goes on infinitely meaning everything that exists here exists infinitely in space, and every possibility on just this tiny speck exists infinitely as well. We are all merely an arrangement of atoms, eventually all other arrangements will be exhausted and repeats. But yeah, none of that's interesting compared to things like celebrities, movies, tv, politics, pop culture etc.

>>1601152
By that logic, living is so boring because our physical bodies are so limited. Might as well not bother amirite?

>>1601161
Living gives us a lot of freedom compared to the alternative. Don't make a fool out of yourself.

>>1601131

It cheapens the whole human experience. I'm a very spiritual person and like to believe there is a bigger plan for us:)

>>1601169
>Cheapens
What the hell? It enriches it.

To know that all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium all came from supernova explosions and those same explosions created every comet, asteroid, and planet in existance, it's just plain enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGftPUcMujw

Mathematics
Chemistry
Physics
Astronomy
Biology
Engineering
Psychology
Health Sciences

>Political Science
I don't think so, Tim.

>>1601184
That was amazing.

>>1601190
Neil deGrasse Tyson always is.

He's my mancrush.

eleitrcal engerring is god tier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4&fmt=22

There are others like that too.

>>1601224
Lawrence Krauss! I can't find much of anything on him, even on youtube, google video, and fora.tv. Do you know where I could see more of his stuff? I loved his lecture on basically the origin of things and the nature of the universe (can't remember title).

>>1601224
the thing is... so what

stars are pretty but if you want to talk about the profoundness of nature then the complexity of the circulatory system or the brain has them beat

real science is about knowledge and applications of knowledge, not about poetic soundbites. I've come to think that most people who are fans of astronomy aren't actually into the science itself, they're just impressed by large numbers (and are probably high too).

Anyone saying astronomy is worthless is a trollmor a retard. Astronomy is responsible for the discovery of:
heliocentrism
the origin of the universe
the origin of all heavy elements in the universe
helium
orbital mechanics eventually leading to man made satellites
knowledge of tides and seasons
evidence of the consequences of greenhouse effect on venus
etc

not to mention navigation for thousands of years of history and the richer understanding of the scale and nature of the universe

Sorry to stray off-topic-ish, but does anyone have the pic of the guy in a kitchen reacting to Sagan's "in order to make an apple pie" quote?

>>1601238
Here's Lawrence's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

I got to watch this bro and ask a question when he came to UBC. Jealous?

>>1601238
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

He also appeared in the "Beyond Belief" miniseries.

>>1601246

almost none of those things have any practical applications brodad >_>

>>1601243
If you find astronomy boring, then good for you.

Just don't call it useless and try to belittle people who do enjoy it.

>>1601246
not to mention astrology

>>1601243
Physics undergrad here, starting 4th year in 2 weeks. I am heavily leaning towards astrophysics, even after 3 years of classes focused on thermodynamics, quantum dynamics, optics, and many others. Astronomy/astrophysics just seems so much more important, I would be doing a disservice to myself to settle for anything less fulfilling and exciting.

>>1601246
Most of those discoveries are thanks to astrophysics

>>1601258
Sorry I hurt your feelings but I'm just expressing my opinion. The star-worship here on /sci/ seems to be mostly made by stoners without the capacity to understand anything more complicated than an autotuned remix of Carl Sagan.

>>1601262
why does astronomy seem more important to you? Thermodynamics, optics, and even quantum mechanics all have more practical applications. Astronomy is only useful to philosophers.

>>1601271
Science isn't just about practical applications, bro. If it were we'd all be engineers.

>>1601271
trollface.jpg

Astronomy is currently preoccupied with trying to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics. Knowledge fail.

>>1601275
But use of the word "important" implies a practical application (unless you're talking about philosophical ramifications)

>>1601277
Yeah, I know astronomers are "trying" to do that. So is every other physicist. The theory of everything is the holy grail of physics and to be frank, not of much practical use anyway.

>>1601271
The far future of humanity is not on Earth, it's good to get to know where you're going, what it's like there, and who you're going to meet when you get there. Sorry I'm not selfish enough to look only 50-100 years ahead of myself.

Also, there's way more unknowns in astrophysics et. al. than say, thermo.

["Dat's slward]

slward indeed.

>>1601291
"practical" get the fuck out engineer, people originally thought there would be no practical use for the telephone.

>>1601293
Don't be silly

>>1601292
Oh yeah absolutely, there will come the time when astronomy will be important for the future of people. But our technology hasn't caught up to it yet. The reason there are so many unknowns in astrophysics is because we don't have the means of discovering them and so until the people in OTHER sciences make interesting new discoveries, astronomers don't have a lot to do other than sit on their thumbs looking at the stars.

>>1601267
I've never touched any drug.

How about I speculate about your kind too, i.e smug phonies who are actually dull and presumptuous:

>stars are pretty but if you want to talk about the profoundness of nature then the complexity of the circulatory system or the brain has them beat

>I've come to think that most people who are fans of astronomy aren't actually into the science itself, they're just impressed by large numbers (and are probably high too).

And people like you apathetic to astronomy, space exploration should be trusted to be more scientific?
You're the kind of people who have made /sci/ bad lately (since the beginning of June), pretending that science is dry and hard and can't be a pleasure.

>>1601304
>don't have the means of discovering them and so until the people in OTHER sciences make interesting new discoveries
It's like you haven't read the thread.

I'm just baffled.

>>1601309
That's stupid, of course science is a pleasure. Learning things is fun. There's just not a lot of interesting things to learn in astronomy, other than the easily accessible factoids that science fans are so fond of.

>implying mathematics is science

>>1601311
Which part in particular? The sentimental YouTube videos or the discoveries that were made centuries ago?

all this talk of astronomy reminds me of this game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eREddMjt4

>>1601086
>>1601087
>>1601185
>mfw
chemistry higher than physics

>>1601321
and there you go. Astronomy is fun to look at and fantasize about and not much else.

>>1601317
Sentimental? You should look up that word you jsut used.

Try profound and deep concepts shortened into soundbytes so that they become accessible to people not willing to listen to an entire lecture. A nice tune in the background doesn't hurt either.

Does everything have to be broken down for you to understand it?

>centuries ago
please.

You people are retarded. Evolution, genetics, the origins of life so far down the list? Without those things we wouldn't be in a position to study anything else. Physics, chemistry, mathematics, the stars and planets would all exist with or without us.

>>1601328
>profound and deep concepts
sure thing, Mr. Philosopher

The way you guys handle astronomy, it's not even science. It's poetry.

>>1601312 There's just not a lot of interesting things to learn in astronomy,

Yeah right..

If you subconsciously meant that there are as many interesting things in other natural sciences then ok, but I bet you didn't.

>>1601335
Hate to burst your bubble but yeah, as a civilization, we know a great deal more about other natural sciences than we do about astronomy. Plus, it's much easier to develop new theories when your field of study is, you know, on Earth.

>>1601332

Pfft. Philosophers in astronomy threads, which deal with facts? They're frequenting the theoretical bullshit physics threads, not the astronomy threads.

>>1601346
Have you seen the astronomy threads? They're full of either idiots or trolls asking stupid questions about light or gravity. At least you have to have a modicum of intelligence to even begin trolling topics in theoretical physics other than astronomy.

Mathematics
Physics
Astronomy
Chemistry
Biology
Engineering
Health Sciences
Political Sciences
Psychology

>>1601354
I was going to reply, but you did for me.

top to bottom:

Mathematics
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
Engineering
Psychology
Astronomy
Health Sciences
Political Science

So where does philosophy rank in all of this?

Chemistry = Biology = Physics = others

in terms of meshing theory and empirical, i like biology.

>>1601456

between math and physics

>>1601456
Not entirely sure it's technically a science. Less so than math anyway.

>>1601456

Science is a philosophy but philosophy is not a science.

philosophy is, as it currently is constituted, not a science. but it's closer to a science now than it ever was. phil of language and mind especially.

the logicks are just maths.

Physics
Mathematics
Astrophysics
Chemistry
Biology
Engineer
Social Sciences

GROUP 1

Mathematics
Physics
Engineering
Chemistry

GROUP 2

Biology
Health Sciences

GROUP 3

Psychology
Political Science

>>1601501
Science is a set of facts, truth, research, possibilities, logic, knowledge, and the pursuit of such, not philosophy.

>>1601577
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Seems like science fits right in there.

>>1601583
Philosophy is a subjective, overly interpretative field of the view of life and it's living. It's more art than science.

>>1601592
I'm not saying philosophy is science, more that science is sort of a subset of philosophy.

Mathematics
.
.
.
.
.
Physics, Computer Science, Chemistry, Biology
.
.
.
.
.
.
Engineering
.
.
.
.
.
.
All the rest of it

>>1601501
>>1601577
>>1601505
>>1601583

Depends on your view of how Anal a person wants to get.

"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice

..

From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, "science" had more-or-less the same sort of very broad meaning in English that "philosophy" had at that time."

So alot of things are "Science". The Magi and Alchemist where the scientists of their time. Though fare more primitive in their understanding of their experiments and use of the materials around them, and the studies of the night sky and nature. Also more secretive hence why it was all considerd "magic" back then.

>>1601598
But it's not. Science actually records and verifies it's data, research, and facts; and actually proves it's worth and place in humanity. Philosophy is completely subjective and is just some cunt's interpretation and views on his values, or some other cunt trying to figure out and define his in his own way so. Philosophy is loose and subjective, science is absolute, they are not apart of each other in any way.

Philosophy is logic without empiricism. In a way it's proto-science

The revolution of that was the invention of science was the hybridization of logical and empirical reasoning.

Philosophy, Politics and Psychology.

Only ones that matter. You could make a society using those correctly.

tier 1
chemistry
physics
engineering

tier 2
biology
health sciences
mathematics

tier 3
astronomy

not even a science tier
phychology
political science

1 Physics
2 Medicine
3 chemistry


Not really sciences on their own,
4 Engineering
5 Mathematics

>>1601688
obvious troll is obvious

>>1601688
You could make one, but you wouldn't keep it alive.

bump

>>1601696
>I obviously don't know how a working economy works.

>>1601703
>Implying you would want a society without sciences

>>1601706
>Implying psychology philosophy and politics have anything to do with this board

>>1601710
>implying any thread is always directly on topic
>Implying Psych and Politics aren't classifiable sciences

read more.

mathematics is very important, but it isn't a science, so

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Engineering
Health Sciences
Astronomy
Psychology
Political Science

I think this XKCD comic raises some valid points.

http://xkcd.com/435/

>>1601074

...duh
>>1601741

From usefulness to society to uselessness:

Physics
Astronomy
Meteorology
Engineering
Chemistry
Biology
Psychology
Health Sciences
Mathematics
Political Science

>>1601778
>uselessness
>Health Sciences
>Psychology

I hope you're trolling my friend

Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Engineering
Astronomy
Biology
Psychology
Health Sciences
Political Science

... is Mathematics a science? what is its field of study? I mean, it's cool and everything, but...

>>1601787
... the board is called Science & Math... if mathematics were a science, then why not only Science?

>>1601790
Because it sounds better?

>>1601790
>>1601790
Because mathematics, while not exactly a scientific field on it's own, is still a very key point and the most important aspect of science.

>>1601799
like Perez & Perez Inc?

>>1601810
Yes, Mathematics is a scientific tool, not a science in itself.

let's see. you can't do jack shit in science without maths. mathematical innovation powers innovation in other fields. it's a science.