Jump to content

Talk:Index of branches of science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 19 January 2018

[edit]
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)[reply]

Index of branches of science → List of branches of study – Not all the terms listed are really scientific. PlanetStar 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accountancy?

[edit]

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)[reply]

What about Genetics?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Demonology

[edit]

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

Dictionary -ologies

[edit]

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)[reply]

What do you mean by dictionary only terms? Other than that, I agree that there are a large number of inappropriate links and we need to agree on a clear scope for this index. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Sciences

[edit]

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)[reply]

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.

[edit]

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)[reply]

Can you back up all these claims with references from reliable sources? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written that there are only three ways of legitimately grouping sciences into branches, and by what authority? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where did the J section go?, did a troll remove it?

[edit]

its completely missing. CheesE is very Cool (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no studies starting with the letter J 120.28.192.137 (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone request a branch of science that starts with J?

[edit]

There is currently no studies that starts with J? 120.28.192.137 (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, can you name one? As soon as someone can find one, we can add it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entries which do not match current definitions of "science"

[edit]

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2] Modern science is typically divided into two or three major branches:[3] the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world; and the behavioural sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies.[4][5] The formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems governed by axioms and rules,[6][7] are sometimes described as being sciences as well; however, they are often regarded as a separate field because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method or empirical evidence as their main methodology.[8][9] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[10][11][12] (copied from lead of Science, see that page's history for attribution)

Not all fields of study are scientific. The suffix -ology indicates a field of study, not a branch of science. We have three options that are immediately apparent: Rename the list to align with its contents, purge the list of inappropriate items, split the list into a list of branches of science, and a list of fields of study (or similar titles). Purging the items which are out of scope is the option which seems most appropriate.

The article needs a clear statement of scope. I suggest that it covers topics which would comply with the scope of science as defined in the lead of the Wikipedia article to be consistent with that article. Also, is it and index to branches of science whether or not they are covered in Wikipedia, or do we limit them to only branches of science for which a Wikipedia article or redirect exist? (i.e. no red links) I am OK with either, but we should stipulate one or the other, and where we accept a redlink it must be cited from a reliable source. The status quo is vulnerable to misinformation by accident or by intent, and we need to fix it

The local annotations should be provided with citations from reliable sources to show that the terms actually belong in the list. Alternatively the template {{Annotated link}} can be used to annotate with the linked article's short description which is supported by citations in the linked page's content.

  • I am going to split out all entries that appear to be non-science fields of study to this page, and anyone who wishes to return them to the list need only provide a reliable source showing that the topic in question is a legitimate branch of science.
  • I will also convert local annotations to annotated links. If anyone prefers local annotation, they need only provide a local reference supporting the annotation. I will do this for article links and redirect links when there is a suitable short description, and tag for citation needed when there is no appropriate short description.

Anyone who has a better idea is welcome to make reasonably practicable alternative suggestions, and anyone who wants to lend a hand is welcome.

I am finding quite a large number of redirects without the term being mentioned in the target article, and also a lot of redirects without a short description. These need references, and do not have any. Some are quite plausible, which is not equivalent to acceptable.

I append a list of entries that appear to be off topic, according to their short descriptions (shown as annotated links, which are supported on their source pages) Please feel free to extend this list with more examples:

Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found some where the short description and local annotation conflict to varius degrees. It will take some work to sort this out. Usually the short description is more accurate, but some are using short descriptions from redirects, which usually need to be fixed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following requirements for all list entries:

  • Use {{{Annotated link}} for all entries:
    • For direct links to article which display a short description which supports the claim that the term is a branch of science, no further requirements.
    • For direct links that do not display short descriptions supporting the term as a branch of science, a citation from a reliable source is required, showing that the term refers to a branch of science. If the term is ambiguous, explain.
    • Where the link is to a redirect, the redirect may not be without mention in the target article, and must have a short description supported by a citation in the target article, or a local citation
    • Red links must have a local citation from a reliable source.

· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First pass of cleanup done. I remove a number of dubious links, and there are still quite a few remaining, which need further examination and removal or citation. The question of where to draw the line remains. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

(There are many more tagged with {{Relevance?}} which I am not sure of either way yet.)

Do not replace these without a reliable reference for the annotation, indicating that it is a recognised branch of science.

  • Aedoeology – science of generative organs.[citation needed](relevance?)
  • Alethiology – The study of the nature of truth (philosophy)
  • Aretaics – science of virtue.(philosophy)
  • Avionics – Electronic systems used on aircraft – science of electronic devices for aircraft.(class of equipment)
  • Axiology – Systematic study of values – science of the ultimate nature of value.[citation needed](philosophy)
  • Chalcography – Incising designs by cutting into a surface – art of engraving on copper or brass.
  • Chalcotriptics – art of taking rubbings from ornamental brasses.
  • Chirocosmetics – beautifying the hands; art of manicure.
  • Chirology – Foretelling the future through the study of the palm – study of the hands.
  • Ciselure – art of chasing metal.
  • Cryptozoology – Pseudoscience that studies disputed or unsubstantiated creatures – study of animals for whose existence there is no conclusive proof.
  • Deltiology – Study and collection of postcards – collection and study of picture postcards.
  • Demonology – Study of demons or beliefs about demons (theology?)
  • Deontology – Class of ethical theories – theory or study of moral obligation.(philosophy)
  • Diabology – study of devils.(religion?)
  • Diagraphics – art of making diagrams or drawings.
  • Diplomatology – study of diplomats.[citation needed][relevant?]
  • Docimology – art of assaying.[citation needed][relevant?]
  • Ecclesiology – study of church affairs. (religion)
  • Epistemology – Philosophical study of knowledge – study of grounds of knowledge. (philosophy)
  • Eschatology – Part of theology – study of death; final matters. (philosophy? theology?)
  • Floristry – Production, commerce and trade in flowers – art of cultivating and selling flowers.
  • Gastronomy – Study of the relationship between food and culture – study of fine dining
  • Glyptography – art of engraving on gems
  • Glyptology – Study of engraved gems – study of gem engravings
  • Gnosiology – Branch of philosophy – study of knowledge; philosophy of knowledge (philosophy?)
  • Hagiology – Biography of a saint or religious figure – study of saints (religion)
  • Hamartiology – Viewpoints of sin according to the Bible – study of sin (religion)
  • Hedonics – Family of views prioritizing pleasure – part of ethics or psychology dealing with pleasure (philosophy?)
  • Heresiology – Study of heresy – study of heresies
  • Hierology – Dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity – science of sacred matters (?)
  • Homiletics – Application of rhetoric to public preaching – art of preaching
  • Hydropathy – Alternative medicine using water for pain relief and treatment – study of treating diseases with water [relevant?](alt med)
  • Hymnography – Person who writes words, or both words and music, for religious songs – study of writing hymns
  • Hymnology – Study of religious song – study of hymns
  • Iatromathematics – archaic practice of medicine in conjunction with astrology
  • Iridology – Alternative medicine technique – study of the iris; diagnosis of disease based on the iris of the eye(pseudoscience)
  • Labeorphily – collection and study of beer bottle labels
  • Liturgiology – Study of liturgy – study of liturgical forms and church rituals
  • Manège – art of horsemanship
  • Metrics – Timing, rhythm, and intonation of speech – study of versification[relevant?]
  • Microscopy – Viewing of objects which are too small to be seen with the naked eye – study of minute objects (technique}
  • Magirics– art of cookery (?)
  • Magnanerie – site of sericulture – art of raising silkworms (type of location)
  • Mariology – Christian theological study of Mary, mother of Jesus (theology)
  • Nasology – scientific joke at the expense of phrenology – Parody nose classification
  • Numerology – Mystical properties of numbers – pseudoscientific study of numbers
  • Pataphysics – Philosophy or pseudophilosophy that concerns what lies beyond metaphysics – science of imaginary solutions [citation needed]
  • Patrology – Study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers – study of early Christianity
  • Peristerophily – pigeon-collecting
  • Philematology – Touch with the lips, usually to express love, affection or greeting – act or study of kissing
  • Phillumeny – Hobby of match paraphernalia collecting – collecting of matchbox labels
  • Phrenology – Pseudoscientific study of human characteristics according to shape of the skull – study of bumps on the head
  • Prosody – Study of Latin poetic laws of metre – study of versification
  • Psalligraphy – art of paper-cutting to make pictures
  • Raciology – Pseudoscientific justification for racism – study of racial differences
  • Reflexology – Alternative medical practice involving pressure to parts of the body – study of reflexes(alt med)
  • Satanology – study of the devil
  • Sophiology – School of thought in Russian Orthodoxy – science of ideas
  • Soteriology – Study of religious doctrines of salvation – study of theological salvation
  • Tegestology – Item to stand beverage container on – study and collecting of beer mats
  • Toreutics – Type of artistic metalworking – study of artistic work in metal
  • Toxophily – Using a bow to shoot arrows – love of archery; archery; study of archery
  • Turnery – Craft – art of turning in a lathe
  • Typography – Art of arranging type – art of printing or using type



References

  1. ^ Wilson, E.O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  2. ^ Heilbron, J.L.; et al. (2003). "Preface". The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. vii–x. ISBN 978-0-19-511229-0. ...modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions.
  3. ^ Cohen, Eliel (2021). "The boundary lens: theorising academic activity". The University and its Boundaries: Thriving or Surviving in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge. pp. 14–41. ISBN 978-0-367-56298-4. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
  4. ^ Colander, David C.; Hunt, Elgin F. (2019). "Social science and its methods". Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society (17th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 1–22.
  5. ^ Nisbet, Robert A.; Greenfeld, Liah (16 October 2020). "Social Science". Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Archived from the original on 2 February 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
  6. ^ Löwe, Benedikt (2002). "The formal sciences: their scope, their foundations, and their unity". Synthese. 133 (1/2): 5–11. doi:10.1023/A:1020887832028. ISSN 0039-7857. S2CID 9272212.
  7. ^ Rucker, Rudy (2019). "Robots and souls". Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite (Reprint ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 157–188. ISBN 978-0-691-19138-6. Archived from the original on 26 February 2021. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  8. ^ Fetzer, James H. (2013). "Computer reliability and public policy: Limits of knowledge of computer-based systems". Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are not Machines. Newcastle, United Kingdom: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 271–308. ISBN 978-1-4438-1946-6.
  9. ^ Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  10. ^ Fischer, M.R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  11. ^ Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  12. ^ Bunge, M (1966). "Technology as Applied Science". In Rapp, F. (ed.). Contributions to a Philosophy of Technology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. pp. 19–39. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2182-1_2. ISBN 978-94-010-2184-5. S2CID 110332727.

Demarcation problem

[edit]

We have a demarcation problem which I do not know how to resolve. Best I can do is include fields I am reasonably confident are science, remove those I am reasonably confident are not science, and tag those which I am sufficiently unsure about, in the hope that other editors more knowledgeable on those fields, will provide some explanation of why various fields are or are not science. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Index_of_branches_of_science&oldid=1259072546"