/sci/ - Science & Math

Biology

>>4706782
is it too general?
i dont think neuroscience, genetics, medicine...etc. are soft.

>>4706788
Probably biology. If not then meterology, just for the sheer immensity of the amount of stuff that needs to be done in it.

>>4706780
>i think we all agree that the harder the science, the more appealing(or higher tier) it is.
I don't.

Astronautical / nuclear engineering are more appealing to me than algebra or theoretical physics

>>4706815

>implying rocket science is not the hardest science

>>4706816
rocket surgery >all

medicine and chemistry of the non-theoretical and non-physical varieties.

Oh sorry weren't you aware? Most of chemistry is stamp-collecting.

All science is either physics or stamp collecting.

>>4706821
nuh uh chemistry is real because I'm learning it

Seriously though, chemistry is glorified lego. It's not a hard science, because all of the hard science in chemistry is physics.

>>4706780
Archaeology
-Meets the definition of a "soft" science and yet it uses hard sciences as its tools

(ex. Radioactive Decay Chains, Geologic Stratification, Comparative Biology, Climatology, Structural Engineering, etc.)

>>4706815
>>4706816
Engineering isn't science. It's not an insult, they are just different.

>>4706845
Experimental nuclear physics and experimental astrophysics are sciences, just sayin'

>>4706826
you can get some pretty hard lego questions though in total synthesis.

>>4706854
you can get some pretty hard Jesus questions in revelations, difficulty has no bearing on how true something is

>>4706850
Neither of those things are engineering, they study the natural world, engineering does not.

>>4706860
prototyping is a pretty big part of both of those fields

but the definitions are blurry, something can have parts that are science and parts that aren't. Most fields do, in fact.

>>4706780

i really hate this kind of circle-jerkery. i work in pure maths and many of my colleagues rate themselves higher than applied mathematicians and physicists because "they don't really understand what they are doing". on the other hand i'm sure the applied guys make fun of us for being too abstract.

it's good to be proud of what you do but anyone who is serious about science should explore other areas. the universe is a beautiful place and it is worth studying every aspect of it.

>>4706826
>lego
>not hard science
the lego can involve very hardcore math and i can't think of anything soft about chemistry

>>4706867
>and i can't think of anything soft about chemistry
orly? when was the last time you tested a new hypothesis?

>>4706866
i think you meet only bad people, because a good mathfag should know better than many people that "we don't really understand what we are doing", more like a philosophist

only half-assed mathfag has such circle-jerkery

>>4706859
hahaha, what?

For one thing, no you can't get hard questions about the bible. How can you possibly creat a question about jesus that tests your problem-solving ability as keenly as a difficult organic synthesis question?

Secondly, true, many mecahnisms in organic cehmistry are fictitious and haven't been thorouoghly investigated, but they're models with predictive power, which makes them good models.

>>4706872
i would like to see some hypothesis on chemistry which is just buzzword, not justifiable by empirical data.

>>4706864
It dosen't matter what the process involved is it's the end goal that matters. Science studies the natural world engineering does not. Both nuclear and astronomy require a lot of engineering but the end goal is not to build a particle detector, a telescope or write a program.

>>4706888
>no you can't get hard questions about the bible

how many words would a person with synesthesia interpret as slightly beige?

Is the number of the beast Nero or Neron ?

>biology
>hard science

>>4706977

>Engineering = real science

>>4706986

Shh. We must stand together, engineers and scientists, to fight off the biofags

>>4706780
>among all soft science, which one is the best(or least shitty)?
These "soft" sciences are usually very broad fields with many different areas of research that differ in how "hard" or "soft" they are.

Geology.
Once you start to learn that shit, you'll realise how incredibly underrated it is.
Also, wicked pay. Great field work. High employment rates after graduating.

>>4706995
>not interested in the biologists
confirmed for engineer

>>4706977
Or maybe for people who are genuinely interested in biology, no matter how stupid it sounds.

Well I'd say mathematics is the best soft science.

I really just don't get why some of you fuckers are so against people learning anything other than physics or pure math. You can be as abstract as you want, but no matter how many math courses you take, you won't instantly become an expert in any field just because "everything uses math!" That's why specialized fields exist. Sure, maybe biology is just applied chemistry, but just as a bio major won't understand the intricacies of inorganic chemistry, a chem major also won't understand high level cellular biology. Studying a "hard science" means you understand a hard science. Alright, that's neat. You enjoy the abstract, and that's all well and good. But other, more application oriented people are going to, well, apply it. Hell, it could probably be argued that so-called "soft sciences" actually require higher levels of critical thinking than hard sciences because of the way they make connections between the real, observable world and the abstract, using previous conclusions to enhance our understanding of the world at large.

tl;dr quite circlejerking over your hard sciences and accept that they're going to be applied to the real world.

>>4707026
Shhh...