Talk:Applied science

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 燕京赵大知识分子.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Applied Biology is missing. This includes fisheries, but also wildlife biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadofthehills (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

not all too clear the difference between applied science and instrumental science. definition of I.S. seems basically the same as A.S. other than to say that it is a sub-discipline of A.S. A sub-discipline identical to the discipline? confusing. also confusing: says that I.S. is NOT theory-oriented then says it is RESEARCH and Dev.-oriented. What is research other than theory-oriented? more confusing.

Engineering should be nested in the Applied sciences section, not separate. 69.230.106.91 18:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Aron

Engineering should be apart of the Applied sciences section. It's not a science, it's the application of sciences, mathematics and imagination.190.21.195.214 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed medicine is missing also. The listing for physician states that medicine is an applied science and I agree. Next time you have labs drawn, just tell them it's not science. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Field links?
A few fields may be missing from this list but I am curious as to the fact that each section just links you to the main article? This isn’t a bad thing, but would it be more proper to add small explanations of each field to give the most basic understanding of each topic? Andrew Colvin (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate - applied research
The article applied research seems to be a duplicate of applied science, but less developed. I found this (applied science) article by starting out in applied research and the clicking to its counterparts in other languagues. Seems inconsistent! KhaaL (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct. This is clearly an instance of WP:Content forking; a view that it is not would take some explanation/justification. I tagged them for merge to/merge from. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I support the merger: there is a need for focus. One Go-To article would clarify any distinctions whilst reinforcing the general concept.

Can I suggest a similar move with the Translational articles? ie: ~ research; ~ science; ~ medicine. They are pretty scatter-gun too. Protozoon (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest the article on "Understanding scientific study by process modeling" in Foundations of Science. That paper shows that science and research have significant overlap but distinct from each other. For example, philosophers do research and applied research (not just the scientists), and some scientific study may not be research (e.g., government investigations of epidemic flu virus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.18.127.98 (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To merge applied science and research is ok. Gcastellanos (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect redirection of "Basic science" to "Fundamental science"
About last week, I greatly revised the "Fundamental science" article, which, as now corrected, reveals the error of redirecting what would be the article "Basic science"—an article nonexistent—to the article "Fundamental science", which is synonym to article "Fundamental physics" and is antonym to article "Special sciences". "Basic science" calls for its own article, synonym to article "Pure science"—which at present also redirects erroenously to "Fundamental science"—while antonym is this article, "Applied science". I do not know how to edit redirections of articles. 108.27.24.87 (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose to edit
Dear Editors

I wish to add several paragraphs with citations to this Section.

Would you have suggestions?

Thank you.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Psychotherapy
Is psychotherapy a form of applied science? It seems to fit the definition, and if that's true, maybe we should add a section? ThePlug111 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Seminar I
— Assignment last updated by Pthomas4 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of a Section
I believe that the section from Applied Science titled "Historical Context" should be removed

First it has no sources and is rather vague with what it is referring to.

Secondly it has pretty much nothing to do with the rest of the page. BlueCapuchin (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)