/sci/ - Science & Math

Physics

/thread

Math

/thread

Hydrology

>>4301373

Notice how this board is called Science AND Math.

Emphasis on the AND.

Just because Math is taught in the faculty of science in most universities doesn't make it a science. After all, biology is taught there too.

If you count maths as a science then obviously maths, otherwise physics.

>>4301379
this
personally i dont give a shit whether or not maths is a science or not

this picture explains all OP

Maths and Physics, 99% of which are virgins.

Astronomy!
Do I win?

Philosophy of course, you filthy peasants

>>4301413

>>4301413
philosophy ≠ science
GTFO, navel contemplator

Women's studies ?

>>4301413
wins, as physics and math are just minor fields in philosophy

>>4301413
philosophy ≠ science
GTFO, navel contemplator

craniometry

African-American Studies.

Note though they asked for the purest "science". Mathematics is not a science. It is used in science but there is a reason why you often see "Science and Maths" and mathematics being in a different schools in most good universities.

Biology for sure

>>4301440

Science comes from philosophy. Philosophy isn't science.

>>4301456
then well have to argue about the definition. of course its not a natural science, but it applies the scientific method just as any natural science.(talking of serious philosophy here, i know theres a lot of shit out there)

>>4301456
>thinking that philosophy cannot be derived from abstract critical thinking skills (psychology) in our species
>implying psychology isn't a science

>>4301474

>implying philosophy isn't just mental masturbation and deriving shit from axioms just like math.

Without experimentation it's not science.

>>4301488

You've got that backwards. Everything in science comes from philosophy. Science is part of philosophy, but philosophy != science. It's like how squares are rectangles but rectangles aren't squares.

>>4301453
So we need a subfield of maths that is also a science?

COMPUTER SCIENCE!

>>4301489
I'd say it's more a lack of falsifiability than experimentation.

>>4301490
Well, you got it backwards. Philosophy is a pure product of our species' process of thought, which is the domain of psychology.

>>4301496
so...Philosophy is just applied Psychology?

>>4301498
Thats why its so shit!

>>4301498
Yes. And psychology is just applied biology which is just applied chemistry which is just applied physics which is just applied mathematics which is just applied logic which is just applied philosophy which is just applied psychology.

>>4301502

how deliciously circular

Physics is purer than math.

Math is based on billions of years of evolutionary experience with the behaviors of the universe. We developed these basic rules of thumb that we call logic and math.

Math is just the purest form of abstract physics engineering.

>>4301529

This is just so wrong I don't know where to begin.

Logic

because fuck math

>>4301532

Brilliant argument, chap. Perhaps you don't know where to start because you don't want to internalize the fact that math is purely a byproduct of our evolutionary experience with the universe? You'd like to think it's this magical structure given to us by the gods that transcends all existence? Give me a fucking break.

>>4301542

You can't do physics without understanding math. You can do math without understanding physics. Math comes out of statements we hold to be self evident based on observation/induction.

Physics uses math to explain physical phenomena.

>>4301385

Why is the mathematician a woman? Everybody knows they're terrible at math and there are very few female mathematicians...

The guy who writes xkcd is such a cock sucker.

>>4301557

>You can do math without understanding physics

No, you fucking idiot, that's exactly the point.

Math IS a primitive form of physics.

It is purely based on the smallest subset of universally repeatable observation. These tools you call "induction" are only "engineering with the smallest subset of physics".

>>4301502
OH GOD WHY?!
WHY DO WE ALWAYS KILL OUR GODS???!!!

>>4301570

We're talking about what is purer. Our understanding of physics relies on our understanding of math. Our understanding of math does nor rely on our understanding of physics.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

>>4301557

>Physics uses math to explain physical phenomena.

Furthermore, the only reason this is the case is because we are clever apes, and we use what tools are at our disposal.

We are actually complete retards by cosmic standards, so we have to break down observed phenomenon in to pieces and try to "fit" them into this primitive logical structure.

The universe does what it does, separate from our formalism for explaining it. That is what purity is. And physics tries to understand these underlying realities, with math only being a secondary tool. THAT'S what makes physics so much more pure.

>>4301589

Except physics doesn't try to understand underlying realities. Physics attempts to observe and predict what happens, but it is powerless to "understand reality". We can only use physics to understand the universe mathematically, making math purer.

>>4301581

>Our understanding of physics relies on our understanding of math

So it only exists in physics if we have a mathematical, or even theoretical model for it?

Ever heard of experimentalists?

Back then the effort to understand nature was made by the 'Natural Philosophers', like Newton, Euler...

Nowdays natural philosophy is called physics, so its pretty much the purest thing. Math is just a tool and everything but the natural numbers is man made.

>>4301595
and hurr durr before you say experimentalists "use math".

Math is "purer" than physics, but math isn't science, so physics wins.
/thread

What the hell do you people mean by pure?

Many scientific concepts today came from philosophers anyay

Why don't we define "purity"? physics does everything it can to probe the underlying reality of the universe, irrespective of our ability to formalize it with these primitive rules of thumb we call math.

>>4301595

Philosophy
Logic
Math Science
Physics
Astronomy Chemistry
Cosmology Biology

Physics is the purest science. Math is purer with respect to philosopy.

>>4301619

This was supposed to be a tree.

Fucking formatting how does it work?

>>4301619
Except philosophy is merely an application of psychology.

>>4301630
>Except philosophy is merely an application of psychology.
This takes the cake, I am officially amused by the amount of trolling in this thread.

>>4301630

which is an application of neuroscience which is an application of biology which is an application of chemistry which is an application of physics which is an application of the scientific method which is a type of logic which comes from philosophy.

Yes it's circular we've been over it already in this thread.

>>4301619

Haha and this is where observe the massive pretension of the human species. We are slightly smarter than apes, and we came up with this little bag of Legos we call "math" and think it's the most brilliant thing anybody in the universe could have come up with. It is immutable and transcendent, and separate from the reality it evolved to understand. Hahaha.

Have you ever thought about how we are WIRED to think we have things figured out more than we actually do, so that we can act on them, so that we procreate?

If we evolved differently we would have a VERY different set of mathematical absolutes we would internalize as being "self-evident".

Yet the universe would still be doing what it's doing, regardless.

We are pathetic animals that just a BLINK OF THE EYE ago on cosmic timescales were chillin in trees and throwing shit around... and we think we have this "pure" structure all figured out... except for a few theorems here and there.

Ha ha ha.

>>4301637
This is not trolling. Philosophy is a result of our critical skills and our abstraction, both are studied by psychology.

civil engineering is the purest form of engineering

imo it would be metaphysics
but what would i know im 12 what is this

>>4301650

>>4301650
>random words capitalized
My crackpot sense is tingling...

Mathematics isn't dependent on us anyway. If we evolved differently we might describe it differently but it would still be equivalent because it's (an acceptably good model of) how things work in this universe.

And again, really, the way that whole post was written makes it hard to take seriously. The emphases, the smugness, the melodramatic phrasing...

>>4301665
I guess you don't like to self-reflect on how many of your convictions are the result of evolutionary pressure. Hint: ALL of them, in some way.

Stop. You didn't think about that carefully enough.

EVERY single conviction you have is the result of your evolutionary history. Math, ethics, "philosophy".

>>4301671
>it would still be equivalent
and here you completely fail to understand our hard-wired pretension of thinking we understand reality. You have no grasp of the fact that we are evolved animals, and everything we know and see is through this billion-year-old evolutionary lens.

>>4301678

As a biologist, your misapplication of evolutionary psychology is making me kind of sick.

>>4301671

"wired" was capitalized because I think one hasn't thought carefully enough about the fact that we are evolved machines, nothing more, and we value things based on relevant needs, like "repeatability" and the fact that "it works", which aren't inherently valuable.

Very was capitalized because I don't think one has thought carefully enough about how different environmental pressures would have wired a very different machine.

"blink of an eye" was capitalized because I think one should reflect on how in just a few thousand years we jumped from shit-throwers to gatekeepers of this pure reality... yet we don't think there's something fishy, and can't even conceive of us being deluded.

>>4301681
Because 1+1 wouldn't equal 2 to intelligent aliens with a completely different evolutionary history right? Because to them pi is not a constant right?

Suck a dick.

>>4301671

>mathematics isn't dependent on us in any way

This is, by far, the stupidest thing I've read on this thread.

>>4301710

sure is popsci pseudointellectual fanboy in here

>>4301710
>herp derp postmodernism durrrrrr everything is subjective and malleable erpp reality isn't real derp

>>4301712
>bases argument on things needed in our particular evolutionary history, namely counting resources and measuring territory.

Ever wonder why kids always seem to "get it" in math when you talk about money?

Nobody thinks that deeply about there own existence, huh?

>>4301731

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. You're not a biologist. You don't know dick about evolution. You probably read the Selfish Gene or something and suddenly think you know everything there is to know. You're also not a philosopher. You're applying evolutionary psychology in a naive and improper fashion.

As was stated by the fine gentleman several posts above me, go suck a dick.

Mathematics is not science.

Mathematics is a tool.

>>4301742
y u mad then?

Can't make a coherent reply without "suck a dick" and childish and pretentious ad hominems?

>>4301731
No one is refuting our evolutionarily history, but we are refuting your claim that just because of our evolutionary baggage we are unable to objectively study the world. We being hardwired to do basic arithmetic does not in any way invalidate 1+1=2 (given the axioms). Other animals also independently evolved to do simple arithmetic.

>>4301751

I didn't make any fallacious ad hominem attacks. You're revealing more of your pseudointellectualist tendencies by trying to sound smart, but once again you've misapplied the concept.

I made a coherent reply. You're arguments are what are childish. They have no scientific basis and you're just spouting bullshit trying to sound smart. Don't expect that you won't get called out.

>>4301751

I didn't make any fallacious ad hominem attacks. You're revealing more of your pseudointellectualist tendencies by trying to sound smart, but once again you've misapplied the concept.

I made a coherent reply. Your arguments are what are childish. They have no scientific basis and you're just spouting bullshit trying to sound smart. Don't expect that you won't get called out.

>>4301752
it's not "baggage", and that gets to the crux of the matter. We like to think we are more than just evolved machines, and that we have this "pure" understanding of reality that is separate from that history.

And of course about the animals, we share a history and a near identical environment. If for example self-replicating structures (hurr, not DNA based) could form inside of a star, their reality would be based on experience with plasma physics. They way they would perceive reality is unfathomably different.

>>4301768
Why are you insulting me repeatedly?
Think before you reply to this.

>>4301781

>We like to think we are more than just evolved machines

Most people here don't think that. I don't think that.

>They way they would perceive reality is unfathomably different.

This is demonstrably false. Mathematics for them would be the same. Maybe it wouldn't use the same symbols or the same formalisms, but true statements remain true statements no matter who is making them.

inb4
>because you think....
why are YOU replying that way?

> Math and philosophy not sciences

Ever heard of formal science, you faggots?

Also, sociology has to be the "purest" science, because you would only use a sentence as "the purest science" within sociology to describe something so vaguely that you can feel superior without really letting people know what you're trying to talk about.

>>4301788
>demonstrably false
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word demonstrable...

>>4301785

>Why are you insulting me repeatedly?

I'm merely making observations, and you keep giving me new ones.

>>4301795

How about the word necessarily then?

>>4301794
I have conceded my previous points to this post.
/leaving

>>4301799
Deep and profound observations, they are. You should be embarrassed the tone of your post, without addressing the actual matter under discussion.

>>4301812

I've addressed the topic of the thread in every post except the last one.

>>4301781
>If for example self-replicating structures (hurr, not DNA based) could form inside of a star, their reality would be based on experience with plasma physics

Even if we suppose your hypothetical star-people do exist, their experience being based on plasma physics does not invalidate the fact that plasma physics do occur, and that is something we do understand.

>>4301817
No, the topic was my understanding, not what I had said.

At least the former gives you a feeling that you are part of a special club where you hold privileged knowledge. That's all that accomplished.

>>4301821

>At least the former gives you a feeling that you are part of a special club where you hold privileged knowledge. That's all that accomplished.

In this case I actually do know more than you. You're making indefensible arguments and falsely attributing scientific validity to them without fully understanding the concepts involved. As someone with formal training in the matter, I am in a position to correct you and point out the errors in your thinking.

Math is based on axioms, not observation of the physical world. It necessarily holds true in all possible worlds. This is not really debatable, and unless you have a solid logical proof overturning the basis of human understanding, then I'm not really that interested in what you have to say.

The higher the levels of uncertainty within the (sub)field, the purer the science. The greater the certainty, the more likely you're dealing with technology or engineering. Computers will soon take over fields with high levels of certainty.

Pure science areas in no particular order:
- Cosmology
- Quantum physics
- Biology
- Psychology
- Sociology
- Economics

>>4301827

I am a physics grad student, but I don't go touting that around when talking on physics forums; it shouldn't be relevant if I can make a statement that stands on its own.

Your entire post is laughable. You corrected nothing and you did nothing to demonstrate any special knowledge or insight you have on the matter.

Also, your statement on mathematics has been addressed and it is absurd.

Recall, I was making assertions based on my observations of the world as fodder for discussion, debate, and hopefully being debunked. I am not writing an article, It's the same level of 'pseudo-intellectualism' as when I shoot the shit with my friends.

You did nothing to discuss a topic. You discussed the person. I hope you grow out of your pretentiousness when you finish undergrad.

"purest science" is a concept that idiots argue about.

>>4301848

>Also, your statement on mathematics has been addressed and it is absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science#Differences_from_other_forms_of_science

>Recall, I was making assertions based on my observations of the world as fodder for discussion, debate, and hopefully being debunked.

I addressed what was wrong with your observations about math as well as biology.

Math is a tool for science, nothing more

>>4301848
If there are other ways of constructing models of reality that are not in some way equivalent to our mathematics. Give an example of your claim: what kind of core philosophy could replace math?

Note: I'm not the guy with the cats

Psychology, since all sciences are based on concepts formed by the brain.

queer musicology
>> mfw when that degree exists in UC berkly
>> mfw when I dont have a face

>>4301874

>>4301369
Niggerology

/thread

Arts

>>4301966
5 star post