Which discipline of science will help humans to develop

[JustBusiness17]

Jungian psychoanalysis, everything else is secondary; If you don't know yourSelf, how the hell to you expect to understand anyone else

I think crowd dynamics are more important than individual enlightenment.

 

[Andiferous]

I once had a brilliant philosophy professor say to me that philosophy is the predecessor to science. When philosophy is proven, it becomes science. This is the origin of all these concepts.

Incidentally, we're missing "philosophy" on the list.

 

[Niocan]

I think crowd dynamics are more important than individual enlightenment.

Says the person in marketing Crowds are emergent systems, based on it's collective parts; Understand one part, and you'll uncover a trait of the larger system. You can understand crowds better this way, but there are more steps to take.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I think crowd dynamics are more important than individual enlightenment.

Says the person in marketing Crowds are emergent systems, based on it's collective parts; Understand one part, and you'll uncover a trait of the larger system. You can understand crowds better this way, but there are more steps to take.

Realistically, we already know enough in both of these fields already... Its just a matter of responsible application at this point

 

[Niocan]

Realistically, we already know enough in both of these fields already... Its just a matter of responsible application at this point

Very true, I can't argue with that. Although I'd like to point out the level of personal applications Jungian psychoanalysis has and how, if applied by all parts, it would change a group far faster and sounder then trying to apply a concept to the group at large.

 

[Grimstad]

HISTORY.
The history of societies, of man, of the planet, etc. An ACURATE accounting of what came before and how we got to where we are.

 

[AndroidAR]

Biomedical engineering. Transhumanism for the win! If we can learn narrow the gap between what we can mimic and what we can't, as well as improve upon our own (and other living things') natural physiology, as a species humanity will get a lot farther. Kinda the driving force behind why Biomedical engineering is my field of study.

One of my dreams (other than making replicants and a sentient android daughter) is that technology and biology will be indistinguishable one day, kinda like Mega Man ZX, where pretty much everything that is alive is part machine.

 

[Case]

False x-chotomy. As previously stated, they are interdependent. Also, new advances in psychology or biology don't necessitate new advances in math or physics, for that matter. So there goes your bogus point. Besides, you'd have to specify a measure for 'development'.

As you're wondering which field to go into... do what you find most interesting. Your career will probably not be fixed, anyway, so I wouldn't worry about that.

 

[PatrickTheScienceGuy]

other: all of the above.

all sciences are equally important in helping the human race.

 

[casey]

If I am to answer which has help the most in the past, I will say biology, or biochemistry...

But if the question concerns the future, I think it is my subject biomolecular (also called bionanotechnology), hehe...


However, to be honest, at the moment the experts in nanotechnology are more like those stupid inventors in sci-fi movies that invent some useless stuff, like (a true story in my uni) gold nanoparticle in micron size so that a gold-ink pen can be used to sign a super classified documents. See this.


But a new trend has come to incorporate the knowledge of biochemistry or biotechnology into nanotechnology. See this for example.

 

[cri8r]

Science is interdependent. Specialization is mostly a matter of preference. Yeah, we got that. But here's the thing...scientific research has really progressed beyond the point of helping humankind. At this point, science creates more problems than it solves, and this is a condition that will continue progressing--the more you think you know, the more dangerous you are. Does that mean we should stop learning and discovering? No. But it does mean that the question of which science will benefit humanity the most is irrelevant. The relevant question is "which science makes the most sense to you?" :facepalm:

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Creationism. Definitely.

As cri8r said, scientific fields are interdependent. They're a choir, singing about the universe in unity.