Hierarchy of sciences

>biology isn't science but math is

>>too stupid to ascend to ... even biology
Do you lack reading comprehension? What I'm saying is that biology is lowest level and math brainlets like you can't even ascend to that. Although I can't say I'm surprised, seeing as how you stumble when encountering a sentence with more than one clause

>"Hierarchy of sciences"
You are the reason we are held back as a species.

what are you basing this off?

Where is category theory?

If A depends on B to a significant extent, A is of a higher type than B.

Social Sciences (Sociology, Economics and Psychology) and Biology aren't sciences

Biology is science for women.

t. a sociologist stole my wife

Mathmaticians being of the highest field of the sciences is like saying linguists are of the highest field of literature.

Math is just a language, and like other languages it helps with the formalization and working of abstract concepts beyond the immediate capacity of human thought.

>Math is harder than Physics
>Making up your own axioms (i.e. "rules") is harder than trying to understand nature's axioms
>Physicists aren't stuck with the leftover real hard problems while Mathlets make up fantasy and call it work and "progress"
>Mathlets are smarter than Physics chads

The "math is harder" meme. Worship the uselessness.

That is a strawman. The argument for mathematics is that we contemplate beauty, meanwhile physicists are left with the busy work of figuring out the world.

I mean, we gave you the theory of differential equations and it has been shown that everythiing in the universe can be modeled with that... and then we moved on. There is no longer beauty on solved problems Now it is your task to use our powerful tools to describe the universe because tbqh it would be too boring to do it ourselves. But do not be sad, every once in a while one of us throws you a bone like Villani or Tao. You know, obviously differential equations are already below the might of mathematicians but I can certainly appreciate a charitable man like Villani who puts his time on the line to help disgusting physics dogs like you. Such a big man. I think I love him.

/thread

Or maybe people have different interests? Seriously what is wrong with you guys

>Mathematicians being of the highest field of the sciences is like saying linguists are of the highest field of literature.
Physicists write masterpieces with Math.
So Physics is Superior & the True MasterRace of all Scientists.

>3. Biology
>2. Chemistry
>1. Physics
>0. Math

>-1. Psychology
>-2. Sociology
>-3. Philosophy
>-4. Spirituality
>-5. Religion

In my opinion positive numbers are based on science which are rooted in physical reality. Everything there can be tested and measured in physical means. While negatives are rooted in abstract or non-corporeal ideas. Math is set to 0 because math is both of these at the same time. Math an be a physical thing, or completely intellectual or imaginary. With this in mind, fields of science which are negative can't be advanced by trying to measure and analyze them with the physical tools used to study the positive fields of science. If we wish to make accurate observations of the negative fields we need to invent new tools to do so. New tools which likely will have some basis or grounds in pure mathematics, but will not touch upon physics, chemistry, or biology.

this, nobody picks their field thinking "oh gosh that stuff is too hard for me better stick to this"

Biology and social sciences are much more difficult as sciences than physic and math.
Why? Because living beings are the most complex objets in the universe that we know of.
Fully understeand how a star works is a simple task compared to the mechanisms into effect in the human brains. That's proven by how little we understeand about it. Now imagine how absurd it is to study how brains interact with each other.
If biology is so easy why didn't we find a cure to all diseases, a way to stop aging or a method to design new life forms before the 21th century while most major discoveries in phisics and chimic are all basically already made?

So every Veeky Forumsentists agree that Psychology & the rest of Humanities are Pseudoscience
>rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reproducibility
> The replication crisis is most pronounced in the field of psychology.
> Among social psychology experiments, only 14 out of 55 (25%) replicated
>quora.com/Is-psychology-a-pseudoscience

I don't deny this, OP. How could somebody like me with ADD and some form of math deficit, e.g., dyscalculia, ever possibly comprehend math? Where would I even begin? I'm an extremely logical person, naturally adept at providing linear-flowing arguments and I excel at philosophical debates: Math is logic in its purest form, yet I have such a hard time with it. I find math incredibly interesting, just very difficult in part due to problems with my working memory. How can I ever beat this? I'll most likely be a brainlet forever.

shitty thread that has been posted 100 times before
t. mathematician

more like hierarchy of autism

Arguably that's because phsychology's studies are skewed by the enourmous differences between a person's cognitive process and another's.
The brain's functions are probably too complex and ever-changing to permit to the scientific method to be really effective.

engineers out rank them all. money is what counts ads.....that and 2D waifus.

Ethics should be lower.

You're on an anonymous Okinawan painting board with a bunch of autistic math/physics undergrads who haven't accomplished anything yet think they're hot shit because their online IQ test said they were really smart and that everyone else is below them

I mean, evolutionary studies and neuroscience fall under the umbrella of psychology, and those who are passionate enough have drawn some really compelling conclusions over the massive collection of case study data available to the field. Even without running the experiments yourself, a good scientist can draw good conclusions where a lesser scientist could not.

For instance, psychologist Jordan Peterson draws on very widely available information and has come to synthesize the objective evidence of human history, evolution, and literature into deep psychological conclusions about human nature. He's a maverick of the soft sciences and even has an actionable plan to topple the great scam that is humanities education:

youtube.com/watch?v=9-77NpxbE7k
youtube.com/watch?v=eVvS3L_aBV4

Master Race Philosophy Major reporting in

toplel

...

type 0: Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov
type 1:
Curry Howard and computation (turing machines etc)
type 2: math stuff
type 3: other fields (there are many)

>Where is category theory?

Category theory is a bunch of fancy words and rather belongs to litterature and humanities

You are propably a visual/right brained thinker/learner just like Hitler, your brain is just not good with numbers

Look up this mysterious mathematician that nobody knows about called Grothendieck.

>Fourier, Gauss, Laplace

you forgot the continental divide between mathematics and philosophy get fucked lmao

The engineer does not care about this pleb argument. He is too busy building rockets to leave this filthy reddit-tier planet.

the social sciences are biology

You need to be smart for any subject. Math is "pure" as your image shows, but it's also has the least compounding of systems involved. You need a chart like this.

This bait is of the poorest quality.

>he's the one '' '' '' '' '' building '' '' '' '' '' rockets and not the construction workers.

>pragmatists actually believe this

Both Philosophy & Theology are pretty useless & worthless pseudoscience. Pure waste of Brain power.
Math is better because at least most of math can be applicable nowadays. Even Number Theory is applicable in Cryptography. And Algebraic Geometry is applicable in Advanced Physics.
Philosophy sums up as "you can't know anything, the wisest man know nothing"
Theology study myth of a guy which supposedly had mythical super powers like to walk above the water & was killed crucified because pissed off Jews, then supposedly resurrected & became immortal. AKA pure Myth.

>Type 0
>Metaphysics

>I can't complex things that have applications to reality so I stick to numbers

>Both Philosophy & Theology are pretty useless
>Pure waste of brain power
>Philosophy sums up as "you can't know anything, the wisest man know nothing"
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the term 'pragmatist.' Your autistic, black and white, structured thinking can only place value on beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application. Some of the greatest minds in history, that built our society from the ground up, have been philosophers. If you were anything other than a brainlet you'd realize your math is just a way to give artificial purpose to your meaningless life. A philosopher understands that life lacks purpose, and therefore places no value on anything within it. Taking up an interest in math for any purpose other than your own pursuit of knowledge is a waste of time. You're kidding yourself if you think your mathematical knowledge has any objective value beyond pragmatic earthly pursuits. With respect to the universe, the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. If you still believe in an anthropocentric existence and a value on your career, you're the true brainlet. when you're dead will you care about the 'contributions' you've made as a mathematician? Of course, that would insinuate that you would actually achieve something after obtaining a diploma; the likelihood of this is very slim, you'll most likely work for a corporation as a no-name part of the construction line. Assuming you'd achieve the same status and subjective value as somebody like Professor Hawking, for example, is insane. On that subject, I should also add that theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models AND abstractions, not dissimilarly to philosophical musings.

This user right here is an excellent example of a pragmatist.

>Math is a Science
L0Lno fgt pls

>Type 0:
>Metaphysics
Stopped reading there.

Why nor Zoidberg Philisophy?

So Phylosophy it's the dad of Mathematics!

Mathematic its a kind of Metaphisics.

pragmatism is a philosophy tho

ur probably just a jew

topkek

There is no such thing as applied mathematics. Jonny von Neumann was a mathematician. Not an applied mathematician, a mathematician.

>arguing with shit analogies

>implying math is only about numbers
How to out yourself as a brainlet: the post.

Remove the "only" and this will be a good post.

>tfw in biochem
I understand how psychology isn't science but why biology?

If you're not researching ageing you're wasting your time. No other STEM field is worth studying. So bio would automatically be first.

Dumb.

no argument then?

What is there to argue?

There are so many STEM fields that wont be obsolete for a long time, if ever. How did you even come to your conclusion?

Mathematics is not a science.
Your thread is now officially destroyed.

It's not about being obsolete, it's about the consequences. Nothing you do will matter unless you get to live longer and see the change in the world. You working on quantum mechanics won't matter, you'll be dead by the time any significant breakthrough happens. Same with every other research field in existence. You're just a cog in the machine. So you might as well research something that will allow you to experience more if it pans out.

The only argument I can accept is that you literally like working on something so much that you don't care about the results or the consequences. If the research protocol is so enjoyable that you don't need any other excuse to justify your work. But the reality is that many researchers work on projects because they want to feel like they are making a difference with their results. Practically though, they will never get to see that difference have an effect on society, so they're just fooling themselves.

That's fine, but not everyone is looking at their work and/or their contributions, through the same prism as you. Some people are genuinely content with making small contributions, and don't need to make some grand change. Regardless of that, it is also possible to make big changes in your own lifetime, in many STEM fields.

Personally, I couldn't think of anything worse than living longer than the current human life span. You could extend your life, but you'd just see everyone else die around you, and you're still as susceptible to all the ailments that exist.

>Regardless of that, it is also possible to make big changes in your own lifetime, in many STEM fields.
True, but you have to be really proficient/lucky to be the one.

Thing is, you're gonna see everyone dying around you either way. You think your family won't die during your lifetime? I know it will happen, I know it will hurt like nothing else ever will. You just have to keep going, experiencing as much as you can to keep yourself mentally sane. Otherwise, what's the point?

nope they are skewed because those faggots keep faking their studies and data to publish 'significant' work

>Otherwise, what's the point?

I think the point is different for everyone. I'm genuinely content with just being comfortable while I live; and when I die that'll be fine.

That being said though, it doesn't mean you can't still be ambitious and strive for that change. I do industry based R&D, for the testing of pharma raw materials and products -- but if I don't achieve that goal to the scale that I'd like, then so be it. And I think over people may think the same way as I do.

other people*

A longer life gives you nothing when you die anyway. The only relevant thing would be permanence, which is unachievable. The next best thing we can do is create a hivemind-like artificial intelligence to populate the universe for us. That still only gives us more time, not eternity and especially no permanent existence.
>Might aswell explore the universe as long as we can

"""""Mathematics"""""

What kind of a shit-tier calculated do you use?

>biology isn't science
How?

>If you're not smart enough for math, then you go into physics.

Quite the opposite actually, pic related

>There is no such thing
There is!
Applied Mathematicians like John von Neumann are Mathematician focused on Applied Mathematics:
Fields like Statistics, Financial Math, Mathematical Physics & Scientific Computing
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Applied_mathematics
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics
Many Pure Mathematicians like G. H. Hardy hate to apply Math.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Pure_mathematics
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics
If you try to deny that Applied math exists then go ahead & delete/edit the Wikipedia articles about Applied Math.
Pro tip: You can't deny the facts.

well if we're going to reddit up the board with some xkkkcd

>w*kipedia articles determine the existence or nonexistence of something
I see. So I guess "real" numbers actually exist then. Huh...

>I'm an extremely logical person, naturally adept at providing linear-flowing arguments and I excel at philosophical debates
If that is true, then maybe it is just you not being used to mathematical notation, scaring yourself away from comprehending it? It is true that there are theorems in Mathematics which are extremely powerful, but for this reason require a lot of background to truly even understand and especially appreciate. Some people just glance over this fact and just take it at face value, but some people are simply not satisfied with this, and they get extremely anxious when seeing how easily others seem to accept this. If this is your problem, then it would be best to just take the things you do not understand and try to get to the bottom of it. If you do not understand why and how integration works: Looking into Riemann Integration, try to grasp the concept, then visit Lebesque integration and approach it from another angle. I feel like a lot of people saying that they don't get math would ironically have been best suited with studying pure math, since it removes the superficiality encounter in high school mathematics and really tries to construct the methods you are working with instead of postulating them.