Talk:Branches of science

Much conflicting info about computer science in the article
The article contains much conflicting info concerning computer science. Computer science is listed here as a branch of engineering, and this is not cited and needs to be cited. Then the article says that theoretical computer science is a branch of formal sciences. So how theoretical computer science (which is a big subset of computer science) is both engineering and formal science? The article then again says that computer science is a branch of engineering. This conflicts need clarification. In my opinion, Theoretical computer science is formal science, while applied computer science maybe considered as a branch of applied sciences (not engineering). If anyone has citation for the info listed here, please add it, otherwise it is better that we use cited info only. --Quafios (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

hierarchy of science image
i love image i do.

i am not sure if it is a mistake or i am thinking about it wrong.

the image implies geoscience leads from functional biology. it is the case that the right-most arrow on FB shouldn't be there?

but regardless this leads to ask why astronomy leads from geoscience?


 * Thanks for liking the graphic! The rationale for including the point from functional biology to geoscience is that geoscience includes the study of the biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere, all of which are heavily influenced by life. Moving beyond that, a big part of astronomy is focused on the search for extra terrestrial life.--Efbrazil (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

First sentence
Why "four" major groups in the first stentence? Shouldn't it be three? (The sentence is followed by three bullet-pointed groups.)

I will change it if it is not already. R Meisnumber10 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Branches of science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040608113114/http://www.bio.txstate.edu/~wetlands/Glossary/glossary.html to http://www.bio.txstate.edu/~wetlands/Glossary/glossary.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Need to add aeronautics
We need to add aeronautics to the branches of science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richienb (talk • contribs) 09:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC) make useful changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.78.148 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The explanation of "Branches of Science" appears to say that all forms of knowledge are some form of science. By definition, this can't be.
The proposal that all forms of knowledge are science seems to ignore a fundamental characteristic of science, the scientific method. This is universally understood to be the process of forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and either rejecting the hypothesis or not. A hypothesis can never be completely proven because nothing can be observed for all time and space and being which would be necessary to "prove" something with no doubt of rejection.

So, if scientific knowledge is that gained through the scientific method, there are a few "branches of science" listed here which are not science. In particular, the article refers to Formal Sciences as using a priori methodologies. A priori methodologies can not, by definition, apply the scientific method. For instance, the truth of mathematics is self-contained. Numbers are named and relationships (addition, subtraction, etc.) between numbers are defined. These relationships result in self-fulfilling results, it makes no sense to formulate a hypothesis that 1 + 1 is not equal to 2.Espound58 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hierarchy of science image revisited
I would argue that this image does not belong in this article. It represents on editor's concept of a "hierarchy of science", and idea that does not appear to be attributed to anyone else and comprises a form of WP:NOR. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to, the image's creator and the editor who added it here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ In the absence of any dissention, I have removed the image. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to this removal. There is hierarchy and order to science/knowledge. The image conveys it better than no image.
 * https://www.telework.ro/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/The_Scientific_Universe2.jpg 189.113.69.2 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Science
Animal classification 2001:4450:8185:AC00:B127:1879:4D74:E44B (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Science
Branches and sector 103.10.31.7 (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What about them? Meters (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Bracket on this page are not closed properly.
Hello,

Brackets at the right most box, giving an insight on the branches of science not closed. In fact, there are 2 brackets, one within another, leading to ambiguity in the types and branches of a particular field of science, creating confusion among the user.

Page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

Where: Rightmost box under the 2nd heading.

Thanks. Swatisharma890929 (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you mean the "Branches" portion of the infobox, it displays correctly for me. That is the Science template, and the display is not set in this article. Take your concern to Template talk:Science. Meters (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Science
definition 102.123.65.36 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)