Portal talk:Science/Categories

Deductive sciences
The "Deductive Sciences" category should be eliminated. (1) Mathematics is not a science; (2) Deductive reasoning is employed in virtually all of the sciences.

Wikiant 14:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) Sure... however it depends on the definition of science you take, and there are different usages and MANY philosophical points of view on this.

(2) Deductive science is opposed to inductive. E.g. biology is not a deductive science, but clearly an inductive one, no? (Does not meen deductive reasoning is absolutely forbiden in biology, but just that it would not be called a deductive science). So, you suggest to remove maths from sciences? Ok... Where would you put Computer Science? We are currently getting to define CS in wikipedia in a precise sens: the academic sens which makes a clear distinction between, e.g. Computer Science and Computer Engineering. Thus CS would not fit, in my point of view, in the other catefories (in perticular, it would not fit as a technology, nor an engineering science, etc...) BTW, you want to remove maths as a science, but dont you mind seeing technology listed as such?

IMHO, on this high-level page "science" should be accepted in a broad sens. Perhaps not quite as broad as to be "a body of knowledge" (which maths certainly are, but much much more would fit in this), but at least in a sens broad enough to include any discipline wich is traditionally part of science faculties of universities. This includes maths! People using the portal would typically expect to find maths in the list of sciences. Precision on the precise status of maths amongst sciences could be left for maths, sciences, and philosophy of science pages...--Powo 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific method
The page originally described a science as a field of inquiry that utilized the scientific method. This is, I believe, the correct definition. If one desires to broaden beyond this definition, then we're opening the door mathematics and computer science, but also to astrology, numerology, etc. IMHO, a field either progresses via observation, hypothesis, experimentation, or it doesn't. If it does, the field is a science.

Wikiant 23:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Maths and CS
I do not feel we can not let maths or CS in without letting pseudosciences in. There is a huge difference. Also, if many agree mathematics is not a science because of its lack of link to reality, I dont think this is so clear at all for CS! If one takes a logical positivism point of view, maybe CS is not a science. On the other hand, if one takes a scientific realism point of view, maybe it is. Anyway, this will depend on the definition of science. In an NPOV spirit, I think it would be reasonable to accept CS as a science.

BTW, it seems to me CS proceeds by "hypothesis and experimentation". Not all the time: often it is more hypothesis and deduction (like maths, or like physics sometimes!). In fact, I see CS bringing a new motivating challenge to Philosophy of Science: it is different to other sciences (or academic disciplines, as you like...) in its method: pretty much like maths, but yet with some strong link to physical reality (if you accept that a computation has a physical reality), but the reality observed by CS is a constructed reality, not a natural reality (but this is also true for huge parts of chemistry, as an example). Deciding if CS is a Science or not will depend on the definition of Science. Since many philosophicall points of view where elaborated before CS existed, CS is a new stimulating example of a science (or not). To me, this is a really interesting topic, but I feel it is not the role of an encyclopedist to rule CS in or out of science:this is philosophers and scientists role (which we may be too, but in this context, we are (amateur in my case) encyclopedists). As such, I think it is not our role to rule CS in or out of Science: we are just to report the problematic, but on the lower level pages (CS article, science article). On the portal, it would be a non NPOV to rule CS out.

I admit I am not intrinsectly neutral: I am a computer scientist myself, and I am very much interested in philosophy of science. My explanations above follow from the fact that I believe that CS is perticular (different from all the other sciences from an epistemology of science point of view), yet it shares many of the properties which should, in my point of view, make it a science...--Powo 08:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

define science
i do not like this template. it is in my opion the worse template i have seen on wikipedia as of yet. and that it was made for the science portal i think is disgraceful. firstly, i understand the definition of a science is loose in many peoples eyes. but what this table seems to be is a summary of the major fields in science. of which, i find it hard to believe that dentistry and nutrition are worthy candidates. i know i reek of bias, but i hate the phrase "social science"; to me, its a coincidence that it shares a word with proper science - there is no joined meaning.
 * the physical sciences - no problem, that bit is ace. keep it as it is.
 * life sciences - biology, ecology, botany, zoology, medicine and (possibly) psychology.
 * social sciences - get rid of, it's rubbish. should be called humanities and kept very seperate. also, what is the difference between geography and earth sciences?
 * related - maths is great, but not really science, so i dunno. engineering is questionable, but should (if a science) be included in the physicals. "technology" is so vague it should definatly be removed (does it mean info-tech / mech-tech ?). history of science, yeah that's fine.

anyway, i'm bored now. that's the ramblings of a biased young fool. thoughts? mastodon 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This template needs to be modified
Social sciences are already linked to in the Society portal, so I don't know what they're doing on here. I don't know how computer science can be called a physical science, either.

Administration
In what sense is Administration an Applied Science? --Redaktor (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an applied subfield of Political Science. I would probably put it under social sciences myself, but this whole "scientific method" thing has kind of caught on, so I guess it gets pretty hard to handle modern science. JackSchmidt (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In which case I shall move Administration to Social Sciences. --Redaktor (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed Alchemy
Removed Subject Alchemy please refer to history of science portals —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanSyp (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)