-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Which discipline of science will help humans to develop
- Thread starter bemanos
- Start date
5810Singer
New Member
They are interdependent, and none of them will work without Maths, so I find it a redundant question.
Ozymandyus
New Member
Not that old claptrap about how physics and math are really the foundation of all other sciences again!
If you are going to talk about these fields individually, the math needed to do physics is contained within physics, the math needed to do biology is contained within biology, and the math needed to do chemistry is contained within the field of chemistry. If you approach such a question in any other way you are being silly.
Biologists know and use math, but they are still classified as biologists. Similarly, biology requires math, but it is still biology. You don't have to remove all the math from it to call it biology, and it would in fact not be biology anymore if you did remove all the math from it.
The question could perhaps be asked more accurately by asking: What type of scientists will contribute most to human development?
Mathematicians/Physicists
Biologists/Chemists
etc.
I will stick with biology... Without biology which has provided antibiotics, antivirals, nutrition, pre-natal care etc etc math wouldn't work very well, since most mathematicians would be dead.
Though I would argue that engineering is pretty dependent upon physics, and is perhaps merely the application of physics discoveries - quantum computing, transitors, all that junk is basically just applied physics (and some chemistry)
But yea, sure, we can all admit that the sciences are pretty interdependent.
If you are going to talk about these fields individually, the math needed to do physics is contained within physics, the math needed to do biology is contained within biology, and the math needed to do chemistry is contained within the field of chemistry. If you approach such a question in any other way you are being silly.
Biologists know and use math, but they are still classified as biologists. Similarly, biology requires math, but it is still biology. You don't have to remove all the math from it to call it biology, and it would in fact not be biology anymore if you did remove all the math from it.
The question could perhaps be asked more accurately by asking: What type of scientists will contribute most to human development?
Mathematicians/Physicists
Biologists/Chemists
etc.
I will stick with biology... Without biology which has provided antibiotics, antivirals, nutrition, pre-natal care etc etc math wouldn't work very well, since most mathematicians would be dead.
Though I would argue that engineering is pretty dependent upon physics, and is perhaps merely the application of physics discoveries - quantum computing, transitors, all that junk is basically just applied physics (and some chemistry)
But yea, sure, we can all admit that the sciences are pretty interdependent.
Are you wondering which field to go into? If you are then I would say this is the wrong question.
To answer it anyway I'm going to say chemistry just because it always gets the short stick and has actually contributed many advances in medicine, new materials, chemical synthesis, etc, etc. Where would we be without it? But ultimately all forms of science are important.
To answer it anyway I'm going to say chemistry just because it always gets the short stick and has actually contributed many advances in medicine, new materials, chemical synthesis, etc, etc. Where would we be without it? But ultimately all forms of science are important.
UltimateBlasphemer
New Member
All of the above.
obsidianavenger
New Member
torn between biology for the huge boom in biotech recently (and ever onwards!) and physicals for nuclear fusion (which i am convinced we will master eventually).
the amount of energy will be absolutely mind blowing... so much that is now impossible will become possible... bah ok i pick phsyics. lol
the amount of energy will be absolutely mind blowing... so much that is now impossible will become possible... bah ok i pick phsyics. lol
Well, they are. Physics, by definition, is the study of matter, energy and their interactions. Every other discipline is simply a specialized subset of physics. A chemist is an expert in the physics of chemical systems, a biologists is an expert on the chemistry of biological systems.Ozymandyus said:
Why do physicists always get lumped together with mathematicians? This is like calling a blacksmith a soldier simply because the blacksmith designed the sword that the soldier uses.Ozymandyus said:
Before someone tells me I can't have it both ways, let me clarify that I am not saying a chemist is a physicists, only that chemistry is a specialized subset of physics. Physics is not simply a specialized subset of mathematics. I am of the position that pure mathematics is in a completely different realm than the physical sciences.
-1
Ozymandyus
New Member
Yeah, I agree that physics should not be lumped with math... Chemists and Biologists should not be lumped together either of course, I was just rolling with the original poll. They should each be separated out individually.
Again, acting like physics is somehow paramount is silliness. Philosophy is the love of knowledge and asking the questions about why things are the way they are and physics is just is just a subset of philosophy could also enter into the conversation. But saying that does not add anything the the conversation. There are clearly delineated categories here and trying to give them some sort of nested hierarchical structure is simply a fallacy, albeit one that physicists and philosophers can make a more convincing argument for =P. Biology has whole disciplines that cannot be categorized as the study of matter and its interactions, and even the subsets of biology that may fall under that heading existed well before our understanding of matter and energy.
Since biology was probably the first science that interested man (why/how things grow, how to heal wounds, etc) perhaps it could be said that physics is just the the study of the mechanisms which causes life to grow and change. I could make a hierarchy with biology on top, and then physics branching off of it as the study of the matter and energy that is contained within life and that life allows us to see blah blah blah.
Anyway back to the topic at hand, The reason I chose biology (/chemistry) is that we are only just starting to gain the mastery of the tools which let us understand the complex interactions that . We are starting to build full models of cells and what they do, how they work. Much of biology up until this point has been a categorization and a statistical analysis of life, where it appears, how it reacts, what it does. The only way to learn new things was to experiment on it and see what happened. But as we get truly excellent models of cells and of whole living creatures we can start to model experiments that would be either too cruel or just too expensive before these tools existed.
In addition, biology has US at the center of it, it is the study of us, what makes us work, what makes us not work, what we can do to our bodies, and how we can fix it - Seems like the very definition of where advances in 'human development' would come from.
Again, acting like physics is somehow paramount is silliness. Philosophy is the love of knowledge and asking the questions about why things are the way they are and physics is just is just a subset of philosophy could also enter into the conversation. But saying that does not add anything the the conversation. There are clearly delineated categories here and trying to give them some sort of nested hierarchical structure is simply a fallacy, albeit one that physicists and philosophers can make a more convincing argument for =P. Biology has whole disciplines that cannot be categorized as the study of matter and its interactions, and even the subsets of biology that may fall under that heading existed well before our understanding of matter and energy.
Since biology was probably the first science that interested man (why/how things grow, how to heal wounds, etc) perhaps it could be said that physics is just the the study of the mechanisms which causes life to grow and change. I could make a hierarchy with biology on top, and then physics branching off of it as the study of the matter and energy that is contained within life and that life allows us to see blah blah blah.
Anyway back to the topic at hand, The reason I chose biology (/chemistry) is that we are only just starting to gain the mastery of the tools which let us understand the complex interactions that . We are starting to build full models of cells and what they do, how they work. Much of biology up until this point has been a categorization and a statistical analysis of life, where it appears, how it reacts, what it does. The only way to learn new things was to experiment on it and see what happened. But as we get truly excellent models of cells and of whole living creatures we can start to model experiments that would be either too cruel or just too expensive before these tools existed.
In addition, biology has US at the center of it, it is the study of us, what makes us work, what makes us not work, what we can do to our bodies, and how we can fix it - Seems like the very definition of where advances in 'human development' would come from.
Thank youOzymandyus said:
The edges of those categories are quite fuzzy, actually. My work is very closely related to chemistry, but I don't consider myself a chemist (they are way smarter than I am :shock: especially the biochemists--who have a fairly large overlap with biology.)Ozymandyus said:
Although I agree, in their "pure" forms (if that phrase even means anything in today's scientific community) each field is clearly delineated. Not many biologists are looking for neutrinos.
Not if you are building your hierarchy from first principals.Ozymandyus said:
Back on topic. I actually didn't choose any of the above choices simply because advances in any of them will lead to other (probably unforeseen) advances in others. Nanotechnology could have a breakthrough which it turns out has a major application in biochemistry, and so on and so fourth.
But, if you are looking for a career path, I would suggest taking many courses in the various fields you find interesting and from there determine your course of study with a much greater knowledge base.
-1
Ozymandyus
New Member
You can make contributions in any field, and they all will be exciting fields to work in and each will have serious advances. The most important thing will be: Do you ABSOLUTELY LOVE what you will be doing in whatever field of study you go into.
This should be paramount - not how much difference you will make. Only absolute love will get you through the tedious hours in the lab, or the staring at raw data for hours trying to tease out patterns, or the years you will spend on mathematical transformations, or the dead end experiments that you work on for years and then realize will have no effect.
As -1 said, just take some courses in all of the fields you are interested in, and I guarantee that will help you narrow it down. Definitely pick the field you love rather than the field you feel can do the most good.
This should be paramount - not how much difference you will make. Only absolute love will get you through the tedious hours in the lab, or the staring at raw data for hours trying to tease out patterns, or the years you will spend on mathematical transformations, or the dead end experiments that you work on for years and then realize will have no effect.
As -1 said, just take some courses in all of the fields you are interested in, and I guarantee that will help you narrow it down. Definitely pick the field you love rather than the field you feel can do the most good.
I had to pick nanotechnology since I will probably be studying it next year
It's somewhat difficult to say what will really be the most useful area of research but obviously I have talked to my professors and learned what they are doing in nanotechnology. It is really interesting what they are doing! One of them is working on a nanotech structure that will be able to replicate biological cellular and sub cellular structures. This will mean that we will be better able to study the cell structures and mechanisms much more easily. He is also developing thin film solar cells and researching nanoimprint lithography which looks to be one of the more promising techniques for developing next generation devices. Others are researching next generation oxide semiconductors, nanowhiskers (useful for gas detection) and crystal fabrication of a higher quality than is possible now. It's all really awesome and useful stuff!
It's somewhat difficult to say what will really be the most useful area of research but obviously I have talked to my professors and learned what they are doing in nanotechnology. It is really interesting what they are doing! One of them is working on a nanotech structure that will be able to replicate biological cellular and sub cellular structures. This will mean that we will be better able to study the cell structures and mechanisms much more easily. He is also developing thin film solar cells and researching nanoimprint lithography which looks to be one of the more promising techniques for developing next generation devices. Others are researching next generation oxide semiconductors, nanowhiskers (useful for gas detection) and crystal fabrication of a higher quality than is possible now. It's all really awesome and useful stuff!
JustBusiness17
New Member
Anthropology by far!!!
The way I see it, the human race is at a point in our development where technology has far surpassed our ability to collectively wield it responsibly. The biggest challenge in human development right now is overcoming our cultural differences in order to cooperate on a global scale. After all, with a limited number of resources available, at some point we need to learn to share. This is especially true when the biproducts of our actions have hazardous long term effects...
We need a worldwide cultural shift towards sustainability and what better way to achieve that than to better understand culture.
The way I see it, the human race is at a point in our development where technology has far surpassed our ability to collectively wield it responsibly. The biggest challenge in human development right now is overcoming our cultural differences in order to cooperate on a global scale. After all, with a limited number of resources available, at some point we need to learn to share. This is especially true when the biproducts of our actions have hazardous long term effects...
We need a worldwide cultural shift towards sustainability and what better way to achieve that than to better understand culture.
JustBusiness17
New Member
Funny picture although I'm sure you realize the so-called "purity" of the field is irrelevant to the question posed.Finger said: