Isn't chemistry just physics?

That one is out of place, yeah. But you get the idea.

This, children, is bait

It appears that the vast majority of Sciences are in some way related because they are about studying the natural physical world. The state that one is superior to another or the one eclipses another is the missed the point of Science entirely. Different people study different subjects. It's just that simple. Some things will be discovered more quickly than others due to various reasons but this is not a social competition it's studying for the sake of understanding.

Not only does it appear that you don't know what bulverism is, you also seem to be overconfident when it comes to what is called the asymmetrical insight bias. Please look that up on Google and never make the same mistake again. Calling people children is not something a mature person actually does simply to feel confident in themselves.

where does music sit on that chart?

I say four words, you say sixty. Calm down kid

No but there is physical chemistry but to truly succeed in chemistry you have to have a very good grasp of physics.

:^)

...

physical chemistry is but for most of the 20th century it was actually much more efficient and effective for chemists to utililse, in addition to physics, a system of make believe storytelling, also known as deriving reaction mechanisms with curly arrows or "pushing electrons around".

The stories these systems come up with are generally totally made up and the details do not reflect reality (except in a small number of very well studied, simple reactions ike SN1, SN2, E1, E2) however they do closely match the end product and were (and often still are) much more efficient if you're trying to come up with a synthesis for a molecule you want to create or work out the product of a reaction than performing quantum chemical calculations and simulations on a computer, which previously was and sometimes still is very expensive.

so chemistry is not just physics because chemists don't just calculate answers, they also use their own system of heuristics and storytelling to solve their problems because it was and stil is in many cases more efficient than doing physical simulations and calculations

>philosophy is applied sociology
wrong, brainlet

so which one delves deeper? and which one is accurate?

...

Every model is wrong, but some of them are useful. I didn't know that chemists were this redpilled, like engineers. Physicists have much to learn from them.

I just disagree with the sentiment that it's "totally made up". Electron pushing is based on "orbitals" and quantum mechanics, and if you were serious you could in principle express your reaction as a precise quantum / stat mech calculation which is generally intractable by supercomputers. So of course we have to use tons of approximations, and they are not always going to get the right answer but to say they are just "stories" is an understatement. They're more like very loose heuristics that tend to work and can be refined at great cost.

You might want to check out things like conservation of orbital symmetry in electrocyclic reactions for determining mechanisms, it's stuff that extends past the SN/E mechanisms and is based on light vs temperature to decide torqueselectivity kind of fun and straightforward to play with arrow pushing.

>mathematicians are represented by a woman
top fucking KEK

Above it desu
Some colleagues and I were talking about a situation where we were in a nuclear bunker with room for only one more person, we all agreed we'd rather have a musician with us than any academic scientist

you dont know shit about hierarchy theory or mereology in general. that meme was retarded

>he literally counted the actual words
WEW
E
W

I'm not even him but what the fuck.

The electron pushing is based on electron densities given the orbitals the form the bonds in molecules. It's not made up. It's a horrendous simplification that you aren't truly made away of until later in PchemII if your professor isn't shit

...

it does feel damn good to be in an engineering discipline

engineering ought to be below physics atleast, it isn't even a science, it's pretty clearly an applied science.

>it isn't even a science, it's pretty clearly an applied science
>is not a science but an applied science

Engineering is macro applied science. Its not a field of research so much as a collection of tools.

science seeks to create new knowledge, applied science seeks to do new things with existing knowledge, it's not hard.

fail

>philosophy is applied sociology
lmao

nice

lmao what the fuck are you on?

Why did philosophers in the past said you needes to be trained in math before doing philosophy?

Physics is about the rules, chemistry is about how the rules apply to a narrow range of phenomena. Chemistry is like engineering.

>Engineering
>More pure than physics
Only an engineer would be dumb enough to think this is the case.

Astronomy usually means astrophysics, which is the purest form of physics. It is a subset of physics though, so it shouldn't get it's own step.