/sci/ - Science & Math

Duh.... answer is A.

Retards getting /sci/ to do there homework when it takes like 2 seconds to work it out.

computer science is best science

>>1894328
That's more like engineering than science brah

They're all a part of one machine, like you stated. I think what's meant when people childishly ask "which science is best?" is "which aspect of science is most interesting to you?" The level of maturity and humility required to accept this is not very prevalent on a site like 4chan.

OP was not a fag.


/thread

>>1894340
This level of nuance pleases me.

>>1894319

everyone knows physics pownes all other sciences

>>1894349
>pownes
You automatically lose the argument.

dat picture

wutwutwut

>>1894351


>Implying he wasn't trolling

>>1894362
I'm not implying that. It's irrelevant anyway.

wrong, physics is the superior science considering that ALL other science can technically be DERIVED from physics.

Basically, you can in theory (if you are crazy) do chemistry with nothing but physics, or even biology and psychology with nothing but physics. (although it would take years of work to get anywhere which is very inefficient). But it CAN be done.
However, you could never do physics (even in theory) with any science other than physics.
Physics is the most fundamental of all sciences, it is the science of science, a description of all things the universe contains.

Therefore, physics is superior.

>>1894362
>implying that you aren't a trolololol faggot

>>1894383
If you use physics to describe other phenomena than physics that inherently makes it multi-disciplinary and not physics. You could use the same argument saying mathematics is superior to science because physics involves mathematics.

Anyway, we aren't even remotely close to a unified field theory, so describing psychology is by physics alone is still not possible. The viability of a unified field theory still depends on determinism anyway, so it may well be impossible forever.

>>1894383

What's a foundation without a house?


A homeless man sitting on a concrete block, trying to understand it in terms of concrete block.

>>1894416
I like this analogy

Also:
>I like this analogy
>this analogy
>analogy
>anal
hah, it says anal

I agree.

>you are wrong
>all fields are worth something.

But are all fields of equal worth? That is the test of superiority: whether something has more of some metric (in this case worth) than another thing.

A case can be easily made to the superior benefit certain scientific fields have been to the human race.

>you are wrong
>all fields are worth something.

But are all fields of equal worth? That is the test of superiority: whether something has more of some metric (in this case worth) than another thing.

A case can easily be made on the superior benefit of certain scientific fields for the human race.

>>1894499
Fields don't compete with each other.

>A case can be easily made to the superior benefit certain scientific fields have been to the human race.
That's not true at all. How would you even quantify 'benefit to the human race'?

>>1894506
Lives saved and quality of life improved would be the easy picks.

For example, modern medicine is far superior to oceanography when in the terms of human benefit.

>>1894516
I fail to see how one ACADEMIC field is superior another because it saves others' lives. The point is to learn first, and then maybe apply it to all else.

I support OP's post.

>>1894516
"Live saved". Go ahead and demonstrate that.
"Quality of life improved". Go ahead and quantify that.

This assumes science is here just for humanity anyway. Oceanography has a lot more benefits than you might be aware of. Maintaining the oceanic ecosystem could 'save' bilions of 'lives' in the long run. The only difference with medicine is that it's indirect.

>>1894516
How many lives has math saved?
>implying it's useless.

>>1894533
If you quantify academic fields in terms of your personal interest, then superiority is subjective to you.

>>1894536
>Implying implicatory implications

Math has been very beneficial for the human race.
Life expectancy is a reliable metric for lives saved.
The OECD Quality of Life survey is also a reliable metric for comparing the correlation between advanced nations with applied medicine and nations with little to no applied medicine.

>>1894540

>>1894533
If you quantify academic fields in terms of your personal interest, then superiority is subjective to you.

>>1894536
Life expectancy is a reliable metric for roughly measuring how many lives are saved through modern medicine.

The OECD Quality of Life survey is also a reliable metric for comparing the correlation between advanced nations with applied medicine and nations with little to no applied medicine.

>>1894540
>Implying implicatory implications

Math has been very beneficial for the human race.

Well, I see someone removed their retarded post. Good job.

>>1894565
Edited due to formatting.

Are you frustrated?

>There are no superior sciences.

>>1894562
>Life expectancy is a reliable metric for roughly measuring how many lives are saved through modern medicine.
No because this doesn't fucking tell you anything about indirect effects of fundamental sciences. You're automatically biased towards sciences that have large applications. In your view astronomy, particle physics, quantum mechanics, even genetics, are all inferior to biomedical science.
>Math has been very beneficial for the human race
But not in terms of 'lives saved' which would make it inferior according to you, while it's not.

>>1894580
Astronomy and quantum mechanics, as of 2010, are vastly inferior to the biomedical sciences in terms of human benefit. Who could even argue?

Modern medicine utilizes mathematics to conduct studies and carry out experiments. It has been very beneficial for human life.

>>1894582
That sounds interesting, if not in this specific example groundbreaking research.

>>1894516
THAT'S ONLY UNTIL WE MAKE UNDERWATER COLONIES!

>>1894562
So Brazilians are unrealistically optimistic?

I wholeheartedly agree with you, OP. Just because a science is more fundamental (as >>1894383 demonstrates), this does not mean it is "superior" in any way. It simply means that it is stationed lower on the sliding scale of reductionism. It may be true that understanding the underlying mechanisms of phenomena may lead to interesting applications (not to mention broadening our knowledge about the Universe, something to which more applied fields cannot contribute), but it is of course impossible to apply such fundamental knowledge to more complex systems. For instance. we know the laws of physics to a tolerably good extent, but if we knew all of them perfectly, I highly doubt that even then we could use them to predict human behaviour. Even if I am not overly fond of the social sciences, I recognise their worth, even though I consider the natural sciences to offer much more to humanity as a whole.

Nonetheless, despite your absolutely sound argument, it is fun to imply otherwise and profess some sort of "disciplinary factionalism" (as long as it is not serious, of course).

>>1894608
Brazilians got them Brazilian beaches with Brazilian women with shaved Brazilians.

>>1894587
>Astronomy and quantum mechanics, as of 2010, are vastly inferior to the biomedical sciences in terms of human benefit. Who could even argue?
>in terms of human benifit
I'm not disputing that this is true, I'm disputing that this makes biomedical science superior.

>Modern medicine utilizes mathematics to conduct studies and carry out experiments. It has been very beneficial for human life.
That's my point faggot, there's no way to directly measure the effects of mathematics on human society because it's effects are inherently indirect. This makes your measure of human benefit, a pretty shitty measure.
>>1894582
I lol'd. Well played, sir.

>>1894615
I approve this post.

>>1894587

"in terms of"

You can find the "superiority" in anything once you've narrowed down the playing field to a certain forté.

What you just said is essentially "Football is vastly inferior to baseball in terms of playing on a baseball field".

Of course astronomy seems non-beneficial now when we're talking about surface-level pragmatic goals like increasing life expectancy and curing diseases.

But you think having amassed all this astronomical knowledge isn't going to help in the future, once we're actually up there in a big way?

Take in the entire picture and you'll realize superiority is a notion of subjective short-sightedness.

>>1894623
>I'm disputing that this makes biomedical science superior.

What other metric would you gauge a scientific field's worth in? If you cannot begin to even form a rough measurement of a science's value then you cannot claim they are all equal.

>there's no way to directly measure the effects of mathematics on human society because it's effects are inherently indirect.

Mathematics is arguably the most beneficial science because is essentially the fundamentals of logic required for rational inquiry. My point is there are clearly superior sciences and they are not all equal. Mathematics being one of the most superior ones.

>I lol'd. Well played, sir.

Thank you.

>>1894639
I'm claiming there is no specific measure that makes a field superior. All fields create knowledge, that's the aim of science. You can't quantify knowledge but we can claim that all fields produce it.
>Mathematics being one of the most superior ones.
It's ironic that you say this because technically mathematics isn't even a science. Mathematics is purely descriptive, there's no experimentation involved. It's a tool for science, not a science in itself.

>>1894636
Human benefit is one of the most important practical uses of science. Astronomy may well be more valuable to humans in the future, but as of 2010, medical science is of far superior to utility and benefit for the human race.

If you wish to claim "all fields are worth something" then you must define what makes them worth something and how that worth is equal.

>>1894653
Mathematics is the science and study of applied logic. Now you are just being pedantic.

>I'm claiming there is no specific measure that makes a field superior.

Operating on that assumption there is no specific measure that makes all fields equal either.

>You can't quantify knowledge but we can claim that all fields produce it.

We can quantify the utility and benefit of applied knowledge, and we can quantify how much knowledge a field has produced.

>>1894658
Define which part of an engine is superior. All parts of the engine contribute to it's working but not all parts are created equal. If you claim all parts are equal you must be able to quantify that in terms of benefit to the workings of the engine.

>>1894666
>Mathematics is the science and study of applied logic. Now you are just being pedantic.
Sigh.. Study, yes, science, no. There's no experimentation involved, no statistics. It's descriptive. That is all.

Anyway, see: >>1894668

>>1894658

"Human benefit is one of the most important"

You're still not getting my point. So I'll spell it out for you.

1, ALL SCIENCES WILL HAVE PROVIDED BENEFIT OR WILL PROVIDE BENEFIT IF THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING BENEFIT RIGHT NOW.

2, SUPERIORITY IS A SUBJECTIVE NOTION BASED ON SUBJECTIVE IDEAS AND IS NOT IN ANY WAY SCIENTIFIC. THE IDEA OF SUPERIORITY ONLY EXISTS TO ALLOW MEN WHO CAN'T BE FLEXIBLE AND ECLECTIC TO MAKE DECISIONS QUICKLY, CONFIDENTLY, AND WITHOUT OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS, WHILE STILL RETAINING A LOFTY COMFORT AND SENSE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AFTERWARD.

3, I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THIS SUBJECTIVE BULLSHIT SHOWING UP ON /SCI/ DAY AFTER DAY, ALL IT AMOUNTS TO IS A BUNCH OF DICK-SWINGING SPECIALISTS CLAIMING SUPERIORITY SO THAT THEY CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR SPECIALTY, WHILE THOSE WHO HAVE SENSE ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS COME IN HERE AND PREACH ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVITY, ONLY TO GET IGNORED OR PRESENTED WITH MORE SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENTS.

Stop it. Damn it.

>>1894666
mathematics is a science in the same way library science is a science
they're not
a science uses the scientific method

>>1894674
stop_being_frustrated.png

>>1894695
People make replies like this when they're out of arguments. Surrender accepted.

>>1894695

then_stop_saying_frustrating_things.gif

Wow, a thread where OP is actually not a faggot. I wonder if the comments show a similar intellig- OH GOD THE HORROR THE HORROR

What does /sci/ think of Terence McKenna?

>>1894787
who?

This thread is no fun at all.

ENGINEERING IS SUPERIOR

>>1894674
Youarethismad.tiff

>>1894829
Oh I beg to differ, sir. Did you see the funny man with green paint on his face covered in plastic bananas?

>>1894857

An assessment of my emotions isn't going to make me any less correct.

>>1894917

Heh heh heh...

I like that guy.