/sci/ - Science & Math

i feel deeply aroused

>>9233763
It's missing engineering as the farthest to the right.

Computer Science all the way to the right, but otherwise correct.

>>9233885
>>9233882
Not true at all

The only parts of cs or engineering which could be considered farther to the right would be subsets of math anyway

>>9233763

>>9233763
Why is the mathematician female?

>>9233892
y0?

>>9233892

>>9233886
>hello everyone. I have no sense of sarcasm or comedy.

>>9233763
•Place everything on a numbered line graph
•reverse the order, so math is on the far left side
•set math to 0, physics to 1 and so on.....
•move psychology and sociology to the left of math (putting it in the negative numbers)


Now all physical based sciences are in the positive, while non corporeal sciences are in the negatives. You could even put spirituality and religion in the far negative if you wished, tho those hardly follow any scientific method so can't be said to be a science. Noncorporeal things can't be studied with the same tools used to study the physical sciences, which is why they're so lacking. We simply don't have the tools to properly look inside a human's soul or read their thoughts to study it. You could even put spirituality or religion on the far negative side of the scale, but those are never utilize any form of scientific method so they can't be said to be a science, tho Buddhism does come close.

You'll notice Math is 0. Math is the bridge between the physical and mental. Math can exist and function in both places, even simultaneously. If we're ever to develop tools to study the human thought process or even the human soul it'll be based with math. Such as computer programing algorithms and logic, but in human form. (programing is a sub-set of mathematics)

>>9233763
•Place everything on a numbered line graph
•reverse the order, so math is on the far left side
•set math to 0, physics to 1 and so on.....
•move psychology and sociology to the left of math (putting it in the negative numbers)


Now all physical based sciences are in the positive, while non corporeal sciences are in the negatives. You could even put spirituality or religion on the far negative side of the scale, but those are never utilize any form of scientific method so they can't be said to be a science, tho Buddhism does come close.
Noncorporeal things can't be studied with the same tools used to study the physical sciences, which is why they're so lacking. We simply don't have the tools to properly look inside a human's soul or read their thoughts to study it.

You'll notice Math is 0. Math is the bridge between the physical and mental. Math can exist and function in both places, even simultaneously. If we're ever to develop tools to study the human thought process or even the human soul it'll be based with math. Such as computer programing algorithms and logic, but in human form. (programing is a sub-set of mathematics)

>>9233763
He voted for Shillary. Clearly he's an idiot.

>>9233900
hey do you have a chart for
>"Not Terrible" Mathematicians

>take quantum physics thinking it would be hard
>it's just a bunch of calc-3 level math
>mfw set introduction to set theory was harder than the hardest physics class

you literally have to be a brainlet to think science is difficult compared to math

>>9233988
You have to be a brainlet to get a math degree and not going straight to teaching or academia.

>>9233988
What does difficulty have to do with that comic? It seems like a lot of you keep interpreting this as a ranking of how good fields are or how smart you need to be for these fields when the actual topic is how abstract vs. applied they are.

>>9233988
>>take quantum physics for big bang theory fans
>surprised that it's for brainlets

It's like taking Advanced Calculus and calling Real Analysis easy when you didn't even use Rudin.

>>9233763

>>9233892
Affirmative actions

>>9233882

Wouldn't engineering be to the left of physics? It needs both a good understand of maths and physics to excel in right?

uploading corrected version

>>9234428
>Wouldn't engineering be to the left of physics?
Yes. Engineering is like the epitome of "applied." Putting it to the right on a fields purity scale would be retarded and I think the only reason anyone suggests that is because they're confusing "applied" / "pure" with "bad" / "good" or "smart" / "stupid."

>>9233763
mathematics is on a separate branch, it doesn't really work.

>>9234506
>mathematics doesn't really work
>he posted from a machine made out of concentrated math

>>9234540
Yeah, but anon, I read a shitty popsci article about Godel once and that means mathematics is wrong and reality is muh deepak chopra quantum flapdoodle.

>>9233763
Happy to be me
also
>Mathematician

>>9233763
It's very silly that anyone seriously in any of those fields would allow personal bias to enter into the equation and lead to feeling any level of superiority to any of the others.
You're still kids.

>>9234433
now THAT's correct

So, is phylosophy to the right of math, or are they the same?

>>9233988
>I took an Intro to Modern Physics class and think it's the same as two semesters of quantum

>>9234979
Unfortunately, this.

>t. mathematician

>>9234540
nah the others are natural sciences that blend into each other, mathematics is used for all but is on a separate branch of fields. therefor not applicable when speaking of purity.

>>9233921
yeah man why cant you detect sarcasm from my plaintext

>>9234979
>he doesnt understand bantz

>>9236246
Sorry! Next time I won't forget to use an /s and the end! /s