what\´s the mother of all sciences ?
- Thread starter Luis G
- Start date
Stop Laughing
New Member
I'm a huge math fan, but I don't consider math to be its own science, rather it's the primary tool of science. Science doesn't work without math, just like we don't work without tools (sometimes I just don't work period 
). There is no mother science (they are only restricted by their own laws), but there is a Mother Nature, hmm...
). There is no mother science (they are only restricted by their own laws), but there is a Mother Nature, hmm...
unclehobart
New Member
quantum mechanics
StuTheWise
Member
Meta Physics. It's all theoretical. Who cares if you're wrong? There's no way to prove it 'cause it's just a theory! By the time they get around to disproving you, you'll be long dead and not have to bare the shame of it all.
unclehobart
New Member
In raw terms as to what brought humans out of the bushes and made them the Nintendo playing, Gucchi wearing knuckle dragging monkeys we are today is the science of agriculture.
unclehobart
New Member
buzzz... nyet, comrade. Humans were having sex long before anything resemling a society came about. Sex had nothing to do with the formation of trade, linguistics, food, etc ....
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
I'd say physics, simply because chemistry is reducible to physics, and biology is reducible in theory to chemistry, cosmology is reducible to physics, astrology is reducible to physics, etc.
However, that being said, many people might also conclude that culture is reducible to biology, thus reducible to physics. I think that's making a stretch. Reductionism is good, greedy reductionism is bad. That's why I put the in theory tag on the reduction of biology to chemistry. Even though it is possible in theory to reduce it ultimately to physics, that is just not the right level at which to study the field in a meaningful way. Language, Art, and other aspects of culture are emergent phenomena. It would be silly to try to reduce behavioral science to physics (although physics might provide some insight at certain points, or for certain questions).
Still, although there are some emergent sciences, and greedy reductionism is bad, you can't deny physics as being the cornerstone of the whole shebang.
Philosophy is its own monstor, emergent and ugly. I actually like philosophy quite a bit, but I can't see it being more important than physics. Without physics, many other sciences would be barren. Without those sciences, the philosophy of science would hardly be interesting.
However, that being said, many people might also conclude that culture is reducible to biology, thus reducible to physics. I think that's making a stretch. Reductionism is good, greedy reductionism is bad. That's why I put the in theory tag on the reduction of biology to chemistry. Even though it is possible in theory to reduce it ultimately to physics, that is just not the right level at which to study the field in a meaningful way. Language, Art, and other aspects of culture are emergent phenomena. It would be silly to try to reduce behavioral science to physics (although physics might provide some insight at certain points, or for certain questions).
Still, although there are some emergent sciences, and greedy reductionism is bad, you can't deny physics as being the cornerstone of the whole shebang.
Philosophy is its own monstor, emergent and ugly.
I actually like philosophy quite a bit, but I can't see it being more important than physics. Without physics, many other sciences would be barren. Without those sciences, the philosophy of science would hardly be interesting.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
yes, science of sciences is an apt description. It leaves out a bit, but catches most things.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
freak of nature... well, I've been called a freak before, so...
Then explain to me why there is gravity with these great Laws of Physics?
Physics merily explains why things do what they do at times but it seems it cannot explain them all.
One instance is reaction rates in chemistry once again. They can only be done by experiment. It is too funny when Physicists think they are chemists, way too funny! Physics may exlpain why two particles are attracted to each other or the energy potential of breaking a bond but that is about it. You cannot guarentee once a chemical is made what exact charechteristics it will have and sometimes you are not even close.
Explain with physics why it is very hard to even find a neutrino when billions upon billions of them are passing through the earth every day. Only after very intense supernova events are the instruments on the earth able to find maybe 7 of them over a period of a few days.
The only way they can detect them is when one neutrino hits a certain atom it causes that atom to transmutate into another and light is given off. Explain why that happens with yer physics?
Physics only partly explains why atomic interaction happens. It does not "MAKE IT HAPPEN."
Biology only organizes Chemistry into life processes.
I am sure it can be done but explain why c12 diamonds conduct heat better than a mixture of c13 and c12 with yer Physics. Would be interesting to know why?