Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    But Philosophy isn't a science...
    Well, many people would agree with you there, but to ask what science is the most important is to ask a wrong question, if importance is to be understood as influential here.

    (Original post by Percypig17)
    Not exactly a helpful discussion, and predictably most people here are saying Physics because it's the most 'interesting'. However that wasn't the term of the question and interesting has no real bearing on worth or importance.

    Whilst it is true that physics has had great importance in engineering etc in the past and today, it's pretty clear that most modern medicines and cures are being designed by specialists in chemistry and biology. Its probable, in fact, that day to day biomedical research has the greatest short term impact on most of us than something like theoretical physics.
    If the properties of different materials, the whole Chemistry, has become for the first time the objects that could be predicted from the theory, and not from hypotheses deduced from experiments, could not have been possible without a deep command of Quantum Mechanics.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by jneill)
    How does a scientist get to "a certain view" in the first place? By thinking...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is right. But modern sciences go a step further by proving the view. Can't remember this was done in Philosopy. Philosophy is rather more focused on logical consistency.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1) Chem
    2) Physics
    3) Biology
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Used to be firmly in Camp Physics but decided I actually like chemistry more
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)

    If the properties of different materials, the whole Chemistry, has become for the first time the objects that could be predicted from the theory, and not from hypotheses deduced from experiments, could not have been possible without a deep command of Quantum Mechanics.
    I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. A deep command of quantum mechanics is not at all necessary to do chemistry effectively unless you're doing a physical chemistry branch that is dealing directly with it. But pretty much all other areas are not dependent on it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Pharmacy, because it's a mixture of Chemistry, Biology and Physics
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. A deep command of quantum mechanics is not at all necessary to do chemistry effectively unless you're doing a physical chemistry branch that is dealing directly with it. But pretty much all other areas are not dependent on it.
    I don't seem to have worded that correctly, but what I was trying to say was that Physics doesn't just play a role in engineering, and that Quantum Mechanics has in recent times brought about a predictive success in Chemistry also.

    Yes, a deep command of quantum mechanics is not at all necessary to do chemistry effectively, and nor did I imply otherwise, but the point was that chemical behavior could be arrived at purely by theoretical means. Of course you don't necessarily need this theoretical approach in chemistry, because you can simply perform your experiment to arrived at the eventual conclusion (in fact, you can only arrive at the conclusion), but it is the theoretical understanding that explains the result of the experiment. I'm not a chemist to be able to express this idea as clearly as I should, but I hope you understand the point.

    Also, most advanced apparatus used in experimental chemistry are constructed by knowledge of Physics. Just think of NMR alone.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    biology, more to do with medicine, health and the human body, which is most important.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    I don't seem to have worded that correctly, but what I was trying to say was that Physics doesn't just play a role in engineering, and that Quantum Mechanics has in recent times brought about a predictive success in Chemistry also.

    Yes, a deep command of quantum mechanics is not at all necessary to do chemistry effectively, and nor did I imply otherwise, but the point was that chemical behavior could be arrived at purely by theoretical means. Of course you don't necessarily need this theoretical approach in chemistry, because you can simply perform your experiment to arrived at the eventual conclusion (in fact, you can only arrive at the conclusion), but it is the theoretical understanding that explains the result of the experiment. I'm not a chemist to be able to express this idea as clearly as I should, but I hope you understand the point.
    And theoretical understanding of chemical reactions comes from, well, understanding chemistry, not on quantum mechanics. Organic chemistry lecturers and researchers across the world can accurately predict the outcome of reactions and carry them without having the slightest knowledge or understanding of quantum mechanics or physical chemistry.

    Also, most advanced apparatus used in experimental chemistry are constructed by knowledge of Physics. Just think of NMR alone.
    NMR relies on the coupling between atoms which still falls under chemistry.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    "Rocket science" we'll be needing a new planet soon ~
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Science
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    And theoretical understanding of chemical reactions comes from, well, understanding chemistry, not on quantum mechanics. Organic chemistry lecturers and researchers across the world can accurately predict the outcome of reactions and carry them without having the slightest knowledge or understanding of quantum mechanics or physical chemistry.
    I don't think that's quite the case. Reactions result from the interactions between atoms/molecules/ions, and any further outcomes depend on the shape, behavior, and anything related to the subatomic nature of those particles, which requires understanding of quantum mechanics. This is why a chemistry course also involves studying quantum mechanics.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    NMR relies on the coupling between atoms which still falls under chemistry, and not physics.
    I'm quite sure that doesn't fall there.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    Well, many people would agree with you there, but to ask what science is the most important is to ask a wrong question, if importance is to be understood as influential here.
    The question of the thread is: 'Which do you think is the most important science?' Surely that means we are discussing STEM subjects?

    Philosophy is not a science course - the degree awarded is a BA (bachelor of arts) not a BSc (bachelor of science).

    Philosophy is a study of ideas, not how to be genius (foundation of all knowledge) as the other poster claimed it to be. The skills taught in Philosophy (to argue, to write essays, to analyse) are taught in all other degree courses.

    To answer the thread question, i think the most important science is Maths - because without Maths none of the other sciences would work. And i'm obviously biased towards my fav subject muah ha ha ha...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    I don't think that's quite the case. Reactions result from the interactions between atoms/molecules/ions, and any further outcomes depend on the shape, behavior, and anything related to the subatomic nature of those particles, which requires understanding of quantum mechanics. This is why a chemistry course also involves studying quantum mechanics
    Of course it's the case! I'm an organic chemist and I know next to nothing about physical chemistry and can accurately predict the outcome of reactions. All you need is an advanced knowledge of how elements and functional groups react (electronegativity, electrophiles, nucleophiles etc), you don't need to know about the quantum scale to do this :lol:

    Yes, a chemistry course contains quantum mechanical modules because an undergrad degree teaches you about all the branches, I'm not quite sure what your point is? Just because it's taught doesn't mean you have to have an understanding of it to do all areas of chemistry.

    I'm quite sure that doesn't fall there.
    So HNMR and CNMR aren't part of chemistry despite the fact we're taught them at degree level and chemists use them continuously? You don't know what you're talking about.
    Offline

    17
    zoology..its very cool as well
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Of course it's the case! I'm an organic chemist and I know next to nothing about physical chemistry and can accurately predict the outcome of reactions. All you need is an advanced knowledge of how elements and functional groups react (electronegativity, electrophiles, nucleophiles etc), you don't need to know about the quantum scale to do this :lol:
    Well, most of the physical properties of elements were found by physics. For example, electronegativity is just a ready-made generalised measurement of how atoms are attracted to electrons, and it was the work of Linus Pauling, which of course demanded quantum mechanics.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Yes, a chemistry course contains quantum mechanical modules because an undergrad degree teaches you about all the branches, I'm not quite sure what your point is? Just because it's taught doesn't mean you have to have an understanding of it to do all areas of chemistry.
    My point was that you can also skip the experiment to arrive at the correct result by using taking the theoretical approach.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    So HNMR and CNMR aren't part of chemistry despite the fact we're taught them at degree level and chemists use them continuously? You don't know what you're talking about.
    I was talking about how those machines are made.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    Well, most of the physical properties of elements were found by physics. For example, electronegativity is just a ready-made generalised measurement of how atoms are attracted to electrons, and it was the work of Linus Pauling, which of course demanded quantum mechanics.
    It's the chemical properties of elements. Chemistry is the study of atoms, so electrons, protons etc are still part of chemistry, the subject doesn't just stop at molecules. And once again, you don't need an advanced understanding of quantum mechanics to be able to predict and carry out reactions.

    Organic chemists had no problem doing reactions before quantum mechanics was even discovered, how do you explain that?

    My point was that you can also skip the experiment to arrive at the correct result by using taking the theoretical approach.
    And you don't need to know about physical chemistry to predict the outcomes of reactions. And no, you can't always skip the practical approach, because reactions don't always happen the way you think they will. I don't think you would be saying this if you had ever actually been in a lab and done chemical reactions...

    As I said, I'm doing a PhD in organic chemistry and I have no problem predicting and analysing reactions despite not having done quantum mechanics since my second year and remembering basically nothing about it..

    I was talking about how those machines are made.
    Silly point to make as then we'd get into the topic of engineering. How nuclear magnetic resonance actually works is dependent on the property of atoms, which is chemistry.

    There is a lot of overlap between chemistry of course, but to say quantum mechanics is necessary to work in all areas of chemistry is just absurd. The overwhelming majority of chemists who don't work in the field of quantum mechanics are obvious proof that what you're saying isn't true.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tootles)
    Computers and telecommunications rely on principles only treated by (and relevant to) physics. Without them, none of the infrastructures on which we - and the government, emergency services, whatever - rely very heavily on would exist at all.
    The highlighted areas were created and developed by mathematicians* working for spy agencies and the military, not physicists. If you meant nuclear and rocket technology, now that was developed by a bunch of physicists (who were awesome!).

    These same mathematicians then created the concept of electronic databases to run on these huge computers using relational algebra and calculus. You punch in the code telling the machine to fetch/ shape / slice your data, the machines performs the maths to go and do it for you. Telecommunication worked in a similar fashion - data was encapsulated in code split into chunks, sent over the wire and then reassembled into my mom's Christmas message using mathematics.

    * these mathematicians then tried to solve a problem created by the physicists - nuclear war. In the event the physicists' invention the nuclear bomb destroyed everything, there needed to be something to allow the remnants of mankind and the military in their secret bunkers to communicate so they can rebuild society. Thus these mathematicians invented the most time wasting invention known to man - the Internet.

    .......................followed by cute cat videos......
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on context really... Maths is the foundation for all other science subjects so I assume that would come first. Then physics, chemistry and biology. In that order. Although I hate physics to the core, it is the subject where we calculate our origins, however many billions of years ago.

    But if we're choosing a favourite, then biochemistry
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    The question of the thread is: 'Which do you think is the most important science?' Surely that means we are discussing STEM subjects?

    Philosophy is not a science course - the degree awarded is a BA (bachelor of arts) not a BSc (bachelor of science).
    Yes, philosophy is not considered a science in the everyday sense of the word, but a theoretical science. But do you know why the word PhD stands for the Doctorate of Philosophy?

    Philosophy is a study of ideas, not how to be genius (foundation of all knowledge) as the other poster claimed it to be. The skills taught in Philosophy (to argue, to write essays, to analyse) are taught in all other degree courses.
    That's a bit of mischaracterising the subject-matter of philosophy to be honest. You are taught those literacy skills in order to get your point across effectively. Although many people would define philosophy differently, its subject-matter does involve studying the foundation of knowledge.

    To answer the thread question, i think the most important science is Maths - because without Maths none of the other sciences would work. And i'm obviously biased towards my fav subject muah ha ha ha...
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.