Your scientific topic of interest

[Ozymandyus]

Bah, everything is a field of biology.

You can't do physics unless you are alive. Checkmate.

But seriously, all that posturing stuff about what is a field of what is just silliness. I could just as easily say that physics is just a subset of philosophy, which was one of my Majors. But it certainly doesn't take anything away from physics and give it to philosophy, or make me a physicist, just as saying everything is physics doesn't take anything away from biology and give it to physics. It's just a pointless statement.

Sorry, I know its basically just a joke, I just hear it a lot.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The boundaries of the fields are not very well defined, you can decide that you are going to try and call a certain group of knowledge a particular field but the boundaries are blury.
Given that, try to answer in the general sense, more towards tendencies and less to clear cut cases. If you know what I mean.

 

[MRaverz]

Bah, everything is a field of biology.

You can't do physics unless you are alive. Checkmate.

Hahaha, I'm stealing that. :lol:

 

[nasher168]

I put other, because whilst Evolutionary biology, genetics and a few others are all very interesting, I find marine biology to be fascinating and intend to pursue a career in that direction.

 

[MRaverz]

I put other, because whilst Evolutionary biology, genetics and a few others are all very interesting, I find marine biology to be fascinating and intend to pursue a career in that direction.

Have you applied to do it at Portsmouth? I hear they're exceptionally good at Marine Biology.

(I think it was Portsmouth, and I'm assuming you're in the same year as me. lol)

 

[nasher168]

I put other, because whilst Evolutionary biology, genetics and a few others are all very interesting, I find marine biology to be fascinating and intend to pursue a career in that direction.

Have you applied to do it at Portsmouth? I hear they're exceptionally good at Marine Biology.

(I think it was Portsmouth, and I'm assuming you're in the same year as me. lol)

I'm actually applying next year, although I am looking into it already.
I hadn't actually considered somewhere like Portsmouth. Living in East Yorkshire (or Humberside, as some call it), the area always seemed rather too far afield. That said, if it's got strong Marine Biology, then perhaps I'll give it a look... Thanks.

 

[obsidianavenger]

...or Humberside, as some call it...

lol always nice to find out the places morrissey sings about are real places.

 

[Jotto999]

I find psychology, neurology, astronomy, and philosophy all pretty interesting.

 

[MRaverz]

Have you applied to do it at Portsmouth? I hear they're exceptionally good at Marine Biology.

(I think it was Portsmouth, and I'm assuming you're in the same year as me. lol)

I'm actually applying next year, although I am looking into it already.
I hadn't actually considered somewhere like Portsmouth. Living in East Yorkshire (or Humberside, as some call it), the area always seemed rather too far afield. That said, if it's got strong Marine Biology, then perhaps I'll give it a look... Thanks.

As far as I recall it's world-famous for Marine Biology, which is surprising for the university itself.

As for travel, I live in Suffolk and am considering York University. :lol:

 

[Lallapalalable]

Astronomy, hands down. I was looking for cosmology, but would that fall into astronomy, considering its one of the chief ways to study it? Or, technically, would cosmology pretty much cover everything else, just on a larger scale?

 

[Zetetic]

Bah, everything is a field of biology.

You can't do physics unless you are alive. Checkmate.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/

Checkmate!

(Ok, maybe that's a stretch)

En Passant!

Also, there is the slightly more philosophical debate about weather Computer Science, or some parts of CS qualify as science. Here is a pretty interesting article on it:
http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/PUBS/CACMcols/cacmApr05.pdf

 

[e2iPi]

Also, there is the slightly more philosophical debate about weather Computer Science, or some parts of CS qualify as science. Here is a pretty interesting article on it:

The author says it himself: "computers are tools."
CS is therefore engineering.
-1

 

[Ozymandyus]

Computers are tools, but how you use them is a science.

Heh, so silly how the sciences all have to fight so hard to stake out their rightful place when they are all working in concert.

Of course, computer science is really pretty pure when you come right down to it. There is no doubt in my mind that it should be classified as its own science.

 

[e2iPi]

Heh, so silly how the sciences all have to fight so hard to stake out their rightful place when they are all working in concert.

So, a physicists and a biologist walk into a bar.....

 

[nasher168]

So, a physicists and a biologist walk into a bar.....

They both say "ouch!".
Ba-dum tsss!

 

[Zetetic]

Also, there is the slightly more philosophical debate about weather Computer Science, or some parts of CS qualify as science. Here is a pretty interesting article on it:

The author says it himself: "computers are tools."
CS is therefore engineering.
-1

I'm glad to see you haven't read it or have extraordinarily poor reading comprehension.

From the article:
"By these definitions, computing qualifies as an exact science. It studies information processes, which occur naturally in the physical world; computer scientists work with an accepted, systematized body of knowledge; much computer science is applied; and computer science is used for prediction and verification. The objection that computing
is not a science because it studies man-made objects (technologies) is a red herring. Computer science studies information processes both artificial and natural."


Since you have decided to enter into debate on it, would you care to comment on that section and the examples the author gave? I can think of a couple legitimate attacks on the position, but I'm curious about what you have to say.

Taking the other side: I think the strongest point he made for computer science being a science was that algorithm complexity is very experimental and therefore the Big-O method of modeling computational complexity may be subject to revision. I'm not sure how true that really is, as the foundations for computational complexity are pretty rigorous.

Also, you clearly either don't know anything about computer science or are just trying to be glib; a good deal of what computer scientists do falls exactly within the realm of applied mathematics and applied logic. You might be able to argue that in some way these areas in general really fall under engineering but every way I can think of to do that seems like a stretch, maybe you have some better ideas? What about the work that falls under pure mathematics like graph theory? Perhaps computer scientists don't fall into clearly cut categories; they could be logicians, mathematicians, or scientists (maybe engineers, but computer/software engineering are totally different fields).

 

[e2iPi]

I'm glad to see you haven't read it or have extraordinarily poor reading comprehension.

Based on the rancor obvious in your reply, I would assume you are a computer scientists. I would further assume, based on your thinly veiled ad hominem , that you are unfamiliar with my habit of making short, generally facetious comments on semantic matters of little importance.

I understand that antic banter does not translate well into online forums and I did neglect the obligatory emoticon in my reply, however I would have suspected that a person of reasonable intelligence could have discerned the lighthearted nature of my response in light of my subsequent post in reply to Ozymandyus. For future reference, if I truly have a controversial opinion on an issue, it will be accompanied by substantiating arguments.

Since you have decided to enter into debate on it, would you care to comment on that section and the examples the author gave? I can think of a couple legitimate attacks on the position, but I'm curious about what you have to say.

For my precise opinion on this particular topic of discussion: The question of exactly how to dissect the various fields of scientific inquiry holds little to no interest to me and, in my opinion, is a pointless and rather juvenile exercise in provincialism, jocular derision not withstanding.

Science is the systematic application of the scientific method. Anyone who conscientiously follows this single axiom, regardless of the nature of their individual pursuits, is, in my opinion, a scientist. This encompasses all fields, be it physical or abstract, academic or practical.

Yes, this means that there are scientists in every field of human endeavor, from the astrophysicists probing the furthest reaches of the universe to the biologists unraveling the mysteries of DNA. Mathematics, history, philosophy, engineering, computation and even those to which the moniker is not typically applied such as taxi driving and bricklaying all offer opportunities for the exercise of the scientific method and therefore the production of what can properly be called science.

-1

 

[Zetetic]

Based on the rancor obvious in your reply, I would assume you are a computer scientists.

Actually, no; I do mathematics. I also do not consider myself a scientist. I hold no grudge, but I do find it productive to prod those like yourself into giving a longer explanation .

I would further assume, based on your thinly veiled ad hominem

I didn't intend to veil it, I accused you of being illiterate outright. Of course I didn't think you were illiterate, how would you be able to navigate your way to this site much less write the readily available posts that I can find when searching your posting history?

, that you are unfamiliar with my habit of making short, generally facetious comments on semantic matters of little importance.

True, I am also unfamiliar with your criterion for importance! You seem to be unfamiliar with my tendency to irritate posters into elaborating on something they otherwise would not waste their time on!

I understand that antic banter does not translate well into online forums and I did neglect the obligatory emoticon in my reply, however I would have suspected that a person of reasonable intelligence could have discerned the lighthearted nature of my response in light of my subsequent post in reply to Ozymandyus.

See, now THAT is thinly veiled! The finest silken veil I've seen in a long while!

For my precise opinion on this particular topic of discussion: The question of exactly how to dissect the various fields of scientific inquiry holds little to no interest to me and, in my opinion, is a pointless and rather juvenile exercise in provincialism, jocular derision not withstanding.

Science is the systematic application of the scientific method. Anyone who conscientiously follows this single axiom, regardless of the nature of their individual pursuits, is, in my opinion, a scientist. This encompasses all fields, be it physical or abstract, academic or practical.

Yes, this means that there are scientists in every field of human endeavor, from the astrophysicists probing the furthest reaches of the universe to the biologists unraveling the mysteries of DNA. Mathematics, history, philosophy, engineering, computation and even those to which the moniker is not typically applied such as taxi driving and bricklaying all offer opportunities for the exercise of the scientific method and therefore the production of what can properly be called science.

-1

How very zen! The potter who pots and figures out how to build his skill is a scientist! The point that has not yet been elaborated is this one: to accomplish science in earnest, one must be seeking to add to the social knowledge base. Would we call Feynman a scientist if he had kept all of his ideas in his head? Is there no requirement to fill some the either altruistic or attention seeking role of the expositor? If the bricklayer published (perhaps on one of the many publicly accessible blogs) his scientific approach to bricklaying and demonstrated how his techniques improve the field of bricklaying then I would concede that he is a scientist.

Thank you for your lucid reply!

 

[e2iPi]

You seem to be unfamiliar with my tendency to irritate posters into elaborating on something they otherwise would not waste their time on!

It would seem you are quite competent.

See, now THAT is thinly veiled! The finest silken veil I've seen in a long while!

Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. :lol:

How very zen! The potter who pots and figures out how to build his skill is a scientist!

Not precisely my point, but similar. The potter who undertakes a systematic investigation--for instance experimenting to find the strongest clay or the optimum firing temperature--is obviously engaging in scientific inquiry even though we would not normally refer to him as a scientist. His findings will be just a valid as those of a "proper" scientist.

The point that has not yet been elaborated is this one: to accomplish science in earnest, one must be seeking to add to the social knowledge base.

Not necessarily. From the idealized world of academia, I would have to say yes. However, there is much legitimate science conducted which does not add to the social knowledge base--the potter from the previous example may be disinclined to share his research with rivals, although willingly pass it on through his apprentice. It may eventually come to be a part of the societal knowledge base, through independent research or through an apprentice who reveals the master's secrets.

Would we call Feynman a scientist if he had kept all of his ideas in his head?

Probably not, simply because we would have no reason to name him such. However I would also put forth that many of those ideas would have never flourished if not for learned discussions with his peers (if, indeed, he ever had a peer). Just as our hypothetical potter may have saved weeks or even years had he discussed his project with other experienced potters. This is one of the reasons it is considered good form to publish negative results.

Is there no requirement to fill some the either altruistic or attention seeking role of the expositor? If the bricklayer published (perhaps on one of the many publicly accessible blogs) his scientific approach to bricklaying and demonstrated how his techniques improve the field of bricklaying then I would concede that he is a scientist.

No, I do not believe that altruistic intent is a requirement of science. There SHOULD be, but science can be conducted for purely private gain (see above). I would assert that the bricklayer who does not "publish" but simply passes on his secrets to an apprentice--or even takes his techniques to the grave--has still conducted science, although we may have no impetus to call him a scientists, perhaps "only" a great bricklayer.

-1

 

[Zetetic]

It would seem you are quite competent.

Productive trolling is a skill to be developed! Most people just want to incite a battle of nonsense versus nonsense simply to cause frustration. Minor irritations can easily be taken the wrong way, I do my best o just use them to provoke debate.

Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. :lol: .

Likewise

Not precisely my point, but similar. The potter who undertakes a systematic investigation--for instance experimenting to find the strongest clay or the optimum firing temperature--is obviously engaging in scientific inquiry even though we would not normally refer to him as a scientist. His findings will be just a valid as those of a "proper" scientist.

I concur, and I don't think he should necessarily be called a scientist, though he could be if he truly produce *unique results*(this seems to mean something different in academia, along the lines of achieving a result not well known to those following the area of research at the time of discovery).

Not necessarily. From the idealized world of academia, I would have to say yes. However, there is much legitimate science conducted which does not add to the social knowledge base--the potter from the previous example may be disinclined to share his research with rivals, although willingly pass it on through his apprentice. It may eventually come to be a part of the societal knowledge base, through independent research or through an apprentice who reveals the master's secrets.

Perhaps then it must be added to -some- knowledge base, either a privileged one or a totally public one.

Probably not, simply because we would have no reason to name him such. However I would also put forth that many of those ideas would have never flourished if not for learned discussions with his peers (if, indeed, he ever had a peer). Just as our hypothetical potter may have saved weeks or even years had he discussed his project with other experienced potters. This is one of the reasons it is considered good form to publish negative results.

Sure, but on some level (as you seem to point out) those discussions are of a similar nature to published results, in that they have similar effect on those who engaged in the discussion as a paper might on a researcher who is reading it (actually the discussions probably had much more of an effect on the persons discussing that the paper would have on the researcher). The principle difference here is the ability to record the investigation. Now that we have the ability to make any records publicly known this brings any willing body into the discussion.

No, I do not believe that altruistic intent is a requirement of science. There SHOULD be, but science can be conducted for purely private gain (see above). I would assert that the bricklayer who does not "publish" but simply passes on his secrets to an apprentice--or even takes his techniques to the grave--has still conducted science, although we may have no impetus to call him a scientists, perhaps "only" a great bricklayer.

I would call him a scientist only if he passes it on. It could be secretive and only given to a select few, it could be shared out of greed, it could be out of altruism, but he has to pass it on. If he refuses to pass it on I would not call him a scientists, but something else. Perhaps as you suggested, a master bricklayer.