Talk:Index of branches of science

Requested move 19 January 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The content should be adjusted to conform with the title. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Index of branches of science → List of branches of study – Not all the terms listed are really scientific. Planet Star  03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Expanding this to include anything that is studied would be a major change of scope and cause the topic to become almost meaningless (including religion, politics, philosophy, conspiracy theories, history, art, etc.). If there are some topics in the index that aren't adequately scientific, perhaps those topics should be removed instead of dramatically broadening the scope of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarrelProof (talk • contribs) 05:08, January 23, 2018 (UTC)
 * What about List of branches of science? This is a list. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per and the fact that the proponent of this move hasn't indicated which of the terms are insufficiently "scientific". 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Accountancy?
The latest addition, "Accountancy", seems an unlikely branch of "science", but if you track up through the category tree you get to Category:Business economics, Category:Economics and ultimately Category:Social sciences. Anyone got an opinion on whether accountancy is a science? Noyster (talk),  08:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What about Genetics?
Is that covered by Heredity? The list might include both, as it's not clear that redundancy is an issue with the list having both Entomology and Insectology, defined as the same thing. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:64E7:7245:1263:F8D3 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Demonology
Demonology is a branch of science. Really? SpinningSpark 18:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary -ologies
There really needs to be a rule against dictionary-only terms. Also, not everything ending in -ology is a science. Not every subject of scholarly study is a science. Every time I look at this article, without trying very hard, I find one or two entries that don't belong. On the basis of random sampling, I'm pretty sure dozens, if not hundreds, of entries need removing. Maybe some kind of hatnote is needed. SpinningSpark 09:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Educational Sciences
Educational sciences and sub-branches are not mentioned in the article. I think these scientific fields should be added to the index.--194.27.186.205 (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The three branches of science are not as indicated in this article. They're actually 1) the physical sciences, 2) the earth sciences, and 3) the life sciences.
I think this title, or concept, needs a citation. It is well known in the scientific community that definition of science is the study of the real and natural world. The three branches, as taught in science programs in most colleges and universities, are as follows: 1) the physical sciences (physics, astronomy... 2) the earth sciences (ecology, environmental science...) and 3) the life sciences (biology and the like). Mathematics, or maths, likewise, are not sciences. These are some of the "tools" which science uses when experimenting and/or calculating the data amassed. Science must have the ability to be replicated, as in experiments, and the repeating of the experiments, if done exactly the same way, should have the same end results. This is a major part of the peer reviewed process. And any assumed or alleged results of an experiment must have the ability to be proven or, more often, disproven. Psychology, for example, is the study of the mind. The mind is not a tangible or even known part of the natural world. It can not be experimented on with any degree of certainty. Any experiments having to do with the mind are subject to interpretation by individuals on an individual basis. Also they can rarely be repeated with the end results being the same. As individuals, all results of experiments having to do with people would have too many variables to have any degree of scientific merit. Each one's emotional well being, background and upbringing, to name a few, all have considerable impact on the way each individual will react to the same circumstances. These types of reactions can not be measured and, therefore, can not provide any truly scientific information. L. Tringo Rudolph (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)