Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
I think that was mainly due to the fact that Computer Engineering was already taken.Durandal wrote:This isn't to say that math is bad because it's not science. It's just not science. It's a tool that scientists use, but it's no more a science than computer "science" is.
I agree... for biology.Captain Lennox wrote:Phsyics is the most wide rangew. But Chemistry no matter how many Classes I can take there is still much more too learn. While phsyics is everything. Thoufgh I'm just entering the Phsyics part of the class and learned most of the basic theories, chemistry seems much more * interesting.
Explain to me exactly what part of, say, abstract algebra relates to a description of nature in any way. Math isn't a science. I've told you why it isn't, and all you've come up with are appeals to authority. They call it "Mathematical Science" as a marketing ploy, more than likely.Faram wrote:Whatever.
Now go and look at this instead.
National Science Foundation
http://www.nsf.gov/
The Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS) supports a strong and diverse portfolio of research and education in mathematics, astronomical science, physics, chemistry, and materials research. The purpose of this work is both to deepen our understanding of the physical universe, and to use this understanding in service to society.
http://www.nsf.gov/home/mps/
Computer Theory would've been better.verilon wrote:I think that was mainly due to the fact that Computer Engineering was already taken.Durandal wrote:This isn't to say that math is bad because it's not science. It's just not science. It's a tool that scientists use, but it's no more a science than computer "science" is.
Why theory? From a scientific standpoint I don't see the connection.Specialist wrote:Computer Theory would've been better.verilon wrote:I think that was mainly due to the fact that Computer Engineering was already taken.Durandal wrote:This isn't to say that math is bad because it's not science. It's just not science. It's a tool that scientists use, but it's no more a science than computer "science" is.
Computer Database: Theory because a set principles has been devised to make an efficient database.Why theory? From a scientific standpoint I don't see the connection.
"A theory is a set of universal statements that explain the natural world."(NSTA)Specialist wrote:Computer Database: Theory because a set principles has been devised to make an efficient database.Why theory? From a scientific standpoint I don't see the connection.
Computer Programming: Theory because a certain set principles has already been layed out to create an efficient program. (generalized lists, trees, searching, sorting, hashing, graphs, algorithm design, complexity analysis, recursion.)
Or you could use "Computer Concepts"
So the study of anime is science? Cool! You think that I can get a research grant to watch Evangelion?BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Sciences don't necessarily have to study the aspects of the physical world to still be science. Science is the study of SOMETHING where the something can be almost anything as long as it has a definative nature.
An excellent examples of non physical science is epistomology which is the study of the nature of knowlege. Math is merely another non-phyiscal science in that it studies units and their relationships to one another.
No, definatley not under English. Japanese, yes, but not English.BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:The Study of Anime would probably be under Film or Drama. Maybe even "English" depending upon the message and method the particular movie/series uses.
When most people say "science", they mean "natural science", not all of the various loose definitions such as "pugilism: the sweet science".BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Sciences don't necessarily have to study the aspects of the physical world to still be science. Science is the study of SOMETHING where the something can be almost anything as long as it has a definative nature.
An excellent examples of non physical science is epistomology which is the study of the nature of knowlege. Math is merely another non-phyiscal science in that it studies units and their relationships to one another.
Science must also make predictions in its theories. Does epistimology makes predictions about knowledge that are verifiable?
Do you have any idea of how stupid what you just said sounds? I think they should have stuck with Computer Programming for Computer Engineering, and Computer Engineering for COmputer Science.Specialist wrote:Computer Database: Theory because a set principles has been devised to make an efficient database.Why theory? From a scientific standpoint I don't see the connection.
Computer Programming: Theory because a certain set principles has already been layed out to create an efficient program. (generalized lists, trees, searching, sorting, hashing, graphs, algorithm design, complexity analysis, recursion.)
Or you could use "Computer Concepts"
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
You mean the one that describes what a science actually is? A descriptive endeavor involving predictions?Do you have any idea of how stupid what you just said sounds?
Its fillied with so many bad premises its not even funny.
What the fuck are you talking about? Once again:I'll stick with the most important one for now though.
Your trying to apply the sciencific method to the source from which it is derived. Its like trying to "prove" logic.... it can't be done because the idea that proof is needed for an idea to be accepted as valid is an extension of logic, you can't "prove" something illogically. What your asking for is akin to asking for a mathimatical proof of the validiity of basic arithmatic......
Do you have any idea of how stupid what you just said sounds?
Its fillied with so many bad premises its not even funny.
You mean the one that describes what a science actually is? A descriptive endeavor involving predictions?
First off, this is the actual defination of Epistomology from dictionary.com.Science must also make predictions in its theories. Does epistimology makes predictions about knowledge that are verifiable?
Again, your confusing science and the scientific method.SCIENCE MAKES FUCKING PREDICTIONS THAT ARE TESTABLE AND DISPROVABLE. IF IT DOESN'T DO THAT, IT ISN'T A SCIENCE.
I never claimed that rationality and logic were not important aspects of a science.Science isn't just about explanations. If we were to call any field which tries to explain the universe a science, religion would be a science.
Last time I checked a number line dosen't prove the validity of subtraction or addition. Go back to Pre-school.And, by the way, there is mathematical proof for the validity of arithmatic. It's called a number line. Go back to kindergarten.
Philosophy, not science.First off, this is the actual defination of Epistomology from dictionary.com.
e·pis·te·mol·o·gy n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
The distinction is irrelevant for this discussion. A science uses the scientific method, so we can tell if something is a science by seeing if it uses the scientific method. You're nitpicking.The bad premises I was talking about were:
1. That Science and the Scientific method are the same thing. They are, in reality two different things. If they were the same thing we would be able to use them interchangibly.
Again, completely irrelevant. If something does not use the scientific method, it is not a science. Period.2. The one that I already mentioned, that the scientific method can be applied to the source from which it is derived, a point which you completely ignored.
See above.3. That epistomology must make predictions about knowledge to be a science. This is an extension of your fallacy that the scientific method and science are the same thing.
Then you can't study it scientifically. It's a purely philosophical endeavor.4. That it is POSSIBLE to make predictions about knowledge and then test these predictions. Knowledge is intagible, you can't test it like you can physical variables.
Take an astronomy class. Astronomy makes plenty of predictions with respect to luminosity and apparent brightness. It's not simply information gathering. Astronomy is a branch of physics. Of course that's where its predictions come from.5. That a science must make predictions to be a science. Again this is confusing science and the scienfic method. Astronomy is a hard science but it is nothing more then the gathering of information, any predictions derived from this information are the domain of physics, not astronomy.
A science must, by definition, use the scientific method. The scientific method necessitates predictions. Get a fucking clue.Again, your confusing science and the scientific method.
Not what I'm talking about. Part of science's success has been its applicability through engineering. That success would not be possible without the capacity for making predictions. Where are all the epistimological engineers?I never claimed that rationality and logic were not important aspects of a science.
Try again, genius. The number line is the basis for all math. The number line is the reason 2 + 2 = 4. Start at point 1, go a distance away from that point equal to the distance between 1 and the origin, and you're at the point called 2. This is not a difficult concept.Last time I checked a number line dosen't prove the validity of subtraction or addition. Go back to Pre-school.
