What is your favorite branch of science?

[Skyhilist]

Pretty straightforward question. What type of science are you most into, comrades?

Personally, I'm planning on majoring in zoology in college and want to become a herpetological research scientist.

[Zostrianos]

As I enjoy all things weird and mysterious, I pick physics: quantum physics, hyperspace, parallel universes, I love that stuff

[Skyhilist]

As I enjoy all things weird and mysterious, I pick physics: quantum physics, hyperspace, parallel universes, I love that stuff

Quantum physics is a total mindfuck, but awesome. Did you hear that some Chinese scientists apparently measured the speed of interaction between quantum entangled particles? 10,000 times faster than the speed of light (which should be impossible). Even quantum physicists themselves don't understand yet how crazy stuff like that works

[Zostrianos]

A really crazy one I saw in this documentary is the unbelievably small size of strings in string theory: the example they gave is that the size of a string compared to that of a single atom is like the size of an atom compared to the entire solar system! :w00t:

[bcbm]

um i like em all really. so much to learn, so little time

[Regicollis]

Social sciences. People are interesting.

[Skyhilist]

Social sciences. People are interesting.

I figured most people on this site are into social sciences (which has a ton of separate branches in and of itself), which is why I asked about natural sciences in this particular question

[Os Cangaceiros]

Chemistry

[Thirsty Crow]

Pretty straightforward question. What type of science are you most into, comrades?

Personally, I'm planning on majoring in zoology in college and want to become a herpetological research scientist.
Why so exclusive? I simply can't vote since I like more than one thing here to an equal extent.

Physics, quantum physics for dummies (in fact, all my love for natural sciences is "for dummies"), with special focus on cosmology, logic (is this in fact a "natural science"? how are observations carried out in logic?), general biology (evolutionary, focus), zoology, earth science - environmental mostly, human biology, especailly neuroscience.

How should I decide?

[Fourth Internationalist]

http://rlv.zcache.com/physics_is_phun_fun_schrodingers_cat_thought_card-p137558800888111878envwi_400.jpg

[Skyhilist]

How should I decide?

I dunno, flip a few coins or roll a few dice? There's no way I could've included every possible combination in the options. Plus a "more than one" option wouldn't really tell us anything about the person's preferences.

[Thirsty Crow]

I dunno, flip a few coins or roll a few dice? There's no way I could've included every possible combination in the options. Plus a "more than one" option wouldn't really tell us anything about the person's preferences.
I thought that it is possible to include multiple choices in a poll. And I don't see how multiple choices wouldn't tell something about a person's preferences. For example, it is quite clear that I prefer those that I stated to chemistry, botany, mathematics, and computer science.

But okay, I'll vote physics.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Not listing the queen of the sciences...

[Skyhilist]

I thought that it is possible to include multiple choices in a poll. And I don't see how multiple choices wouldn't tell something about a person's preferences. For example, it is quite clear that I prefer those that I stated to chemistry, botany, mathematics, and computer science.

But okay, I'll vote physics.

Sorry I didn't know there was a way to let people vote for more than one thing. I'll keep that in mind for future reference if this is the case

[zoot_allures]

From the list you've provided, definitely logic. My primary interest is philosophy, and my primary interest within philosophy is philosophy of logic (part of the reason for this is that many important questions of other philosophical fields - especially phil. of language and metaphysics - are, in my opinion, really part of logic and phil. of logic).

Of course, just whether logic should be considered a science is fairly controversial... of the more usual choices, probably physics.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Biology.

[JPSartre12]

I chose "human biology", because it' the closest thing to what I study - evolutionary biology, with a focus in genetics.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Chemistry. I was good at it in high school, even sometimes use it in my work as a mechanic. Oh, and i love blowing up stuff.
My teacher was a genius! I can't remember how often we let kalium sizzle in water, blew up tin cans filled with gas, blew up numerous test-tubes and so on.

I still remember how we learned what happens chemically when you try to extinguish burning fat with water...after showing it of course.
The look on that mans face when looking for the right spot to show it, looking at the sealing. And of course my feeling of perfection when i saw this huge black spot on the cealing. Genius! :laugh:

[Luís Henrique]

Epidemiology, obviously; I can't even imagine how people can prefer anything else.

But it is not an option, so I abstained.

Luís Henrique

[Red Banana]

I chose Botany, though I'm still very interested in Physics and Logical Sciences. Plants rule.

[Red Commissar]

I'm big into biology and it's what I studied at university, so it's my choice. More precisely I'm interested in microbiology and other cell-based sciences.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Given that I'm a physicist, my answer should be obvious.

(Phrenology.)

But I am interested in almost every real science, with the exception of "scientific" psychiatry, which seems like some form of bourgeois Lysenkoism to me.


Quantum physics is a total mindfuck, but awesome. Did you hear that some Chinese scientists apparently measured the speed of interaction between quantum entangled particles? 10,000 times faster than the speed of light (which should be impossible). Even quantum physicists themselves don't understand yet how crazy stuff like that works

I am not familiar with the measurements in question, but the statistical correlations between entangled particles are not an interaction in the physical sense. And physicists do understand quantum mechanics (well, many of them do) - in fact it was the Marxist Fok that provided an immense contribution to this understanding by correcting Bohr's early Copenhagen approach in a materialist manner.

[LOLseph Stalin]

My favourite is anthropology. I'm not sure which category it would fit under though.

[Skyhilist]

I am not familiar with the measurements in question, but the statistical correlations between entangled particles are not an interaction in the physical sense. And physicists do understand quantum mechanics (well, many of them do) - in fact it was the Marxist Fok that provided an immense contribution to this understanding by correcting Bohr's early Copenhagen approach in a materialist manner.

What I meant by my previous statement was that scientists do not yet understand (at least from what I've gathered) how signals between quantum entangled particles travel so fast (despite them not being a normal interaction). Correct me if I'm wrong though, as this is just from what I've heard.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What I meant by my previous statement was that scientists do not yet understand (at least from what I've gathered) how signals between quantum entangled particles travel so fast (despite them not being a normal interaction). Correct me if I'm wrong though, as this is just from what I've heard.

That's just the thing; no signals can be exchanged between the entangled particles. The statistical correlations arise when the state of the two particles is prepared.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Sociology, Biology, Linguistics, Anthropology.

[Hermes]

I guess I'd have to abstain, as I (for whatever reason) have a really difficult time learning any science. Maybe it was due to my maths trouble or attention/motivation, iunno.

[Skyhilist]

That's just the thing; no signals can be exchanged between the entangled particles. The statistical correlations arise when the state of the two particles is prepared.

Hmmm interesting. How exactly would that work on the macroscopic level whereas there are tons of particles involved? I ask because I've been reading about how apparently they some how developed a pair of quantum entangled earrings.

[Vanguard1917]

Hard to pick just one, but i'd have to give a 'shout out' to biotechnology, simply because it's so undervalued and demonised and yet has achieved so much.

[DasFapital]

zoology. I'm a furry. lol jkjkjk:laugh::laugh::laugh:...but seriously.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hmmm interesting. How exactly would that work on the macroscopic level whereas there are tons of particles involved? I ask because I've been reading about how apparently they some how developed a pair of quantum entangled earrings.

Diamonds, as I recall it, not earrings, and the entanglement lasted very briefly. In any case, there are still no signals being exchanged between the diamonds - the correlations were established when the state of the two diamonds was prepared (when they were manufactured, or, more likely, when they were treated to entangle them), and shows up in subsequent measurement.

[Astarte]

Mine is the same as it was when this question was asked about two years ago:

Scatology.

[MarxSchmarx]

I voted other. If I had to choose, the most spectacular "science" is statistics. The world (or at least 99%+ of phenomena we are interested in) is inherently random, and how humans make sense of this randomness and discern signals from noise is in my view a sign or our intellectual maturation as a species. All the natural sciences, except the theoretical ones (although even there), are predicated on statistics and it provides the common currency for empirical research of any kind.

Statistics has a lot in common with mathematics, and a solid mathematical foundation. But. I think statistical intuition, perhaps not unlike the geometric intuition that guides a lot of calculus, is honed in a way that is a bit different from serious mathematics. It's hard for me to put my finger on it, but I think statistical thinking really goes to the core of how empirical science should be approached.


Social sciences. People are interesting.

Social sciences, including (especially?) anthropology are a mere branch of human biology.

By the way, what is logical science or, for that matter, a "formal" science? Also I don't think mathematics (or, at least pure math) is a science, it is an art.

Personally I agree with bcbm, it's hard to settle on one or the other. I think biology is incredibly beautiful, and natural selection particularly elegant. Having said that, so is string theory, linguistics and operations research, which are fields I know next to nothing about but what little I do encounter about them I find incredibly fascinating.

[Manic Impressive]

Mathematics is the only pure science and the one upon which all others rely. Seriously how can I be the only one who's picked Math :scared:

[Il Medico]

Astronomy/Astrophysics and Theoretical Physics mainly. Love that shit.

[Quail]

I'm studying maths at university, so I'm obviously going to choose mathematical sciences. I like pure maths though and find statistics and applied maths really boring. I don't know why. I just get turned off by the number crunching part, and I find it hard to get excited about the mathematical proofs. Maybe it's because I don't really like analysis that much. I enjoy algebra the most.

[Tenka]

Leninology, of course!

No, but seriously, Zoology. Non-Avians and Non-Mammals pls.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I laughed my ass of with this. You started of fine:


If I had to choose, the most spectacular "science" is statistics.


Okay, it's not my cup of tea, but so what.
It is the next sentence that proves your case and broke my sides from laughing:


The world (or at least 99%+ of phenomena we are interested in)

Maybe true, but hilarious none the less!

[Skyhilist]

Diamonds, as I recall it, not earrings, and the entanglement lasted very briefly. In any case, there are still no signals being exchanged between the diamonds - the correlations were established when the state of the two diamonds was prepared (when they were manufactured, or, more likely, when they were treated to entangle them), and shows up in subsequent measurement.

Yes my mistake, they were diamonds. But wasn't the view you hold on this the same as Einstein's, whereas Bohr thought there was a signal traveling between the particles?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes my mistake, they were diamonds. But wasn't the view you hold on this the same as Einstein's, whereas Bohr thought there was a signal traveling between the particles?

Not really; Einstein thought that entanglement was an argument against quantum mechanics as it had developed up to that point, and Bohr disputed that. I am not familiar with any paper by Bohr that would suggest there are superluminal interactions among the particles, and it doesn't matter in any case - the entanglement is recognised as a statistical effect today.

[Invader Zim]

Quantum physics is a total mindfuck, but awesome. Did you hear that some Chinese scientists apparently measured the speed of interaction between quantum entangled particles? 10,000 times faster than the speed of light (which should be impossible). Even quantum physicists themselves don't understand yet how crazy stuff like that works

yeah, a good friend of mine recently completed his doctorate on a project in quantum physics. Whenever he tried to explain what it was he was doing, it didn't merely go over my head, it was somewhere out in the outer exosphere.

[Goblin]

Zoology. Animals are cool.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

yeah, a good friend of mine recently completed his doctorate on a project in quantum physics. Whenever he tried to explain what it was he was doing, it didn't merely go over my head, it was somewhere out in the outer exosphere.

Eh, you'd probably have had the same reaction to microbiology or theoretical chemistry. I don't think quantum physics is that special, and I really dislike how this wonder at quantum mechanics often turns into mysticism etc. etc.

[zoot_allures]

Eh, you'd probably have had the same reaction to microbiology or theoretical chemistry. I don't think quantum physics is that special, and I really dislike how this wonder at quantum mechanics often turns into mysticism etc. etc.
I agree. There are expositions of at least parts of qm that should be perfectly accessible to the "educated layperson", and that don't sacrifice accuracy (e.g. Feynman's "QED" seems to be regarded as a good example). Obviously, more technical material will be incomprehensible, but that's the case for pretty much any field.

On the other hand, there are plenty of physicists who claim that even they don't understand what the mathematics "really means", what the theoretical objects "really are", and so on. The theories work, in that they can be used to make successful predictions, and that's good enough. I don't know if this attitude is so prevalent among microbiologists and theoretical chemists. Of course, this doesn't necessarily tell us anything profound; after all, there's nothing especially mysterious about instrumentalist approaches.

[Raúl Duke]

Hmm, don't know.

I guess Physics (astrophysics), Chemistry, Botany, Computer Science.

I'll choose chemistry for the poll.

[Skyhilist]

Not really; Einstein thought that entanglement was an argument against quantum mechanics as it had developed up to that point, and Bohr disputed that. I am not familiar with any paper by Bohr that would suggest there are superluminal interactions among the particles, and it doesn't matter in any case - the entanglement is recognised as a statistical effect today.

Wait, if there are no interactions, then what exactly have scientists measured the speed of that they found 10,000 times faster than the speed of light? Unless you don't believe that it's a credible study?
Anyhow, here's a link to what I'm referring to: http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17327430-quantum-interaction-10000-times-faster-than-light?lite

[Let's Get Free]

Physics. I love the idea that if you memorize a few numbers and formulas you can predict physical phenomena.

[kashkin]

It's all interesting, bit zoology is probably my favourite.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

Chemistry, They don't call it the central science for nothing.

[Comrade Nasser]

Pretty straightforward question. What type of science are you most into, comrades?

Personally, I'm planning on majoring in zoology in college and want to become a herpetological research scientist.

I love biology, but I hate chemistry.

[Rakshaal]

Voted for general physical sciences, because I love Physics and Chemistry, but Mathematics, Biology, Biochemistry, and Computer Science tie for a close second.

[John Lennin]

Voted physics. I'm going to start studying it in October.
I love the weird stuff like e.g. Dark Matter, Dark Energy etc.

[Skyhilist]

I love biology, but I hate chemistry.

What are your thoughts on biochemistry, comrade? :D

[Asmo]

I love all the sciences. If I could afford to go to school I would become a green chemist, archaeologist, astrophysicist, or particle physicist. My absolute favorite branch would be one of those, but I really can't choose. :(

[MarxSchmarx]

I laughed my ass of with this. You started of fine:



If I had to choose, the most spectacular "science" is statistics.
Okay, it's not my cup of tea, but so what.
It is the next sentence that proves your case and broke my sides from laughing:


The world (or at least 99%+ of phenomena we are interested in)

Maybe true, but hilarious none the less!

tHanks for recognizing my comedic genius, but in all seriousness I must admit the joke is lost on me...

[Mather]

My favorites would be physics, geology and astronomy.

Not really interested in biology and I find computer science really boring, nothing sends me to sleep faster.

[Synthesis-]

Meteorology all forms and sub-forms, in general I like all inter-disciplinary sciences.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Wait, if there are no interactions, then what exactly have scientists measured the speed of that they found 10,000 times faster than the speed of light? Unless you don't believe that it's a credible study?
Anyhow, here's a link to what I'm referring to: http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17327430-quantum-interaction-10000-times-faster-than-light?lite

The original article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614) only talks about setting a lower bound on the speed - the actual "speed" should be infinite, because there is no information being exchanged. It's a statistical effect; I don't know why Yin et al talk about speed.

[Skyhilist]

Ah I see. So would that make the whole "spooky action at a distance" idea about as silly as calling the Higgs Bosom the "God particle" then?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ah I see. So would that make the whole "spooky action at a distance" idea about as silly as calling the Higgs Bosom the "God particle" then?

"Spooky action at a distance" was originally Einstein's derisive term for the conclusions of quantum mechanics in the EPR thought experiment; inasmuch as it suggests some interaction propagating between the particles, I'd say that, yes, it's obsolete.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

tHanks for recognizing my comedic genius, but in all seriousness I must admit the joke is lost on me...

I think about 80% wouldn't get it. ;)1

[Invader Zim]

Eh, you'd probably have had the same reaction to microbiology or theoretical chemistry. I don't think quantum physics is that special, and I really dislike how this wonder at quantum mechanics often turns into mysticism etc. etc.

Possibly, possibly not. I'm a professional academic historian, my partner is a glaciologist and most of my friends and all of my colleagues work in some obscure, be it literary or scientific, field of knowledge of some sort or another. Never before have I encountered a friend or colleague who has not been able to explain there field/research to me that I haven't been able to grasp on a basic level - with the exception of my friend working in Quantum Mechanics. Most research and knowledge is built on logical principals, quantum mechanics on the other hand, at least what my friend was looking at, was highly counter-intuitive.

[xcore777]

Astronomy.