How many sciences are there?

[VirOptimus]

Yes, in the end attempting to produce a formal taxonomy of all sciences probably wouldn't be worth the effort. But I was thinking of it from the other end. If someone calls themselves a chemist, but then can't articulate chemistry's fundamental principles, or can't explain what distinguishes chemistry from physics - or where they overlap - I'd find that a sad state.



In defining a fundamental principle from which the rest of the science stems.

... you dont understand the basics of science.

 

[Resha Caner]

... you dont understand the basics of science.

Do you have something useful to contribute?

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, in the end attempting to produce a formal taxonomy of all sciences probably wouldn't be worth the effort. But I was thinking of it from the other end. If someone calls themselves a chemist, but then can't articulate chemistry's fundamental principles, or can't explain what distinguishes chemistry from physics - or where they overlap - I'd find that a sad state.

I agree with that of course, and I think there could be an answer to your OP, but it would just be really hard to answer. The sciences have branched out really thinly, just as with the practices of law and medicine, for example. In the old days, you could just be "a lawyer" or "a doctor"; a general practitioner. But with increases in knowledge and such, there is much more specialization now, and it will likely increase. Also, there can be disagreement on which endeavors are or aren't science, as with economics, or psychiatry, or those people who claim to tell you what kind of person you are by watching your body movements when you talk.

 

[Ophiolite]

So you just wanted the joy of saying it's a stupid question without expending any effort to aid the discussion. Got it. I'll keep that in mind.

Your replies ... even this one ... seem very defensive - a lot of bolded and red text, etc. I called it "your categorization" simply because it was contained within your reply. Nothing more. You seem to read my posts as if I'm trying to fight you, and I'm not.

With that said, I doubt every university on the planet subscribes to what you posted in any formal manner. But if you want to dash off and try to prove that claim, have at it. Just be forewarned that I'm not waiting with bated breath.



It's much simpler than you make it. You could ignore the question. You could answer, "many." You could answer, "I don't know." Those are all acceptable ways to respond, and none presume I'm in a fighting mood.

It's even acceptable to answer a question with a question, such as, "Why do you ask? Are you studying how many books have been written?"

Just as a heads up: your posting style has a definite passive-aggressive aura about it. Everyone has their own style or styles. If you continue to use your current one - and why wouldn't you? - you are likely to have more than one person imagine a hostile agenda behind the posting.

(If you are trying to use an Inverse-Socratic technique, I don't think it's working. )

Edited to replace a "there" with a "their".

 

[Chesterton]

Just as a heads up: your posting style has a definite passive-aggressive aura about it.

I don't see that at all. I do see the other guy is just aggressive-aggressive.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't see that at all. I do see the other guy is just aggressive-aggressive.

Well, to each their own. I do know that many of Reshna's posts have infuriated me with their apparent snide manipulation of the discussion. If Reshna has a point to make, make it. Don't run around in circles. Come to the point. That's my view. I could be wrong. I'm certainly overdue for that.

 

[Chesterton]

Well, to each their own. I do know that many of Reshna's posts have infuriated me with their apparent snide manipulation of the discussion. If Reshna has a point to make, make it. Don't run around in circles. Come to the point. That's my view. I could be wrong. I'm certainly overdue for that.

lol, I know where you're coming from. Sometimes I look for hidden agendas in straightforward questions on CF. That is present a lot on here, although I'm sure I've never done it myself , but I don't see it in Resha's OP here, and I don't recall ever really seeing that in his past postings.

 

[Chesterton]

Well, to each their own.

BTW, I notice you didn't use the traditional "to each his own". Is that a politically correct snide manipulation of your own?

 

[Ophiolite]

lol, I know where you're coming from. Sometimes I look for hidden agendas in straightforward questions on CF. That is present a lot on here, although I'm sure I've never done it myself , but I don't see it in Resha's OP here, and I don't recall ever really seeing that in his past postings.

I hope you are correct. However, if I see this in Resha's posts then others may see it, as Ken appeared to do, and that would lead to disruption - as we have seen. Remember that appearance is independent of intent. Cheers.

 

[Ophiolite]

BTW, I notice you didn't use the traditional "to each his own". Is that a politically correct snide manipulation of your own?

Interesting observation. I hadn't noticed I had written that. I believe I would typically say "to each his own". If it was a manipulation it was taking place at a subconscious level. I'll be pondering this for the rest of the evening!

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you have something useful to contribute?

You dont, so why would I?

 

[Resha Caner]

Just as a heads up: your posting style has a definite passive-aggressive aura about it.

Since the vessel has been torpedoed, let's abandon ship, get in our lifeboats, row to a tropical island, and try something that might be fun.

First, in order to participate, it's best if you've had an experience where someone replies to an innocent question by either directly or indirectly calling you stupid, ignorant, or assumes you have an agenda such that their reply always begins with something like, "Well, if you wouldn't assume the earth is flat, you'd clearly see the brilliance of my ideas ..."

Second, we'll assume you want the conversation with the offender to proceed for some reason. In other words, rather than simply ignoring their reply, you want to see if you can help clear away some misconceptions, or introduce them to a new idea, or maybe even just give them a shoulder to cry on. You might be amazed (or maybe not) how many times these openly hostile exchanges in public lead to private discussions wherein it is revealed the person is having a bad day or wrestling with some problem/tragedy or another, and you are simply the poor sap upon whom they decided to dump their frustrations.

Third we're going to assume your reason for wanting the conversation to continue is not to simply "put them in their place". That you sincerely want to make an attempt to bring it to a positive conclusion.

Under those conditions, how would you respond?

 

[Ophiolite]

Under those conditions, how would you respond?

The response would vary greatly depending on context. The proposed scenario leaves too many matters undefined and these could each influence the appropriate response.

However, I do not understand how this relates to my observations as to how your style might be read. I hope you will be addressing that at some point. (i.e your opening metaphor was above my pay grade. It had to many possible meanings. I gave up trying to pick one.)

 

[Resha Caner]

The response would vary greatly depending on context. The proposed scenario leaves too many matters undefined and these could each influence the appropriate response.

Fair enough. We could simulate an example here. Ask an opening question, and I'll play the guy with a chip on his shoulder ...

Unless you think the variety of contexts is too great and it would be a useless exercise.

 

[Ophiolite]

Fair enough. We could simulate an example here. Ask an opening question, and I'll play the guy with a chip on his shoulder ...

Unless you think the variety of contexts is too great and it would be a useless exercise.

I don't understand how the exercise relates to my observation about your posting style. Unless you think that I have a chip on my shoulder. If wanting direct communication, free of innuendo and not driven by an agenda, is having a chip on ones shoulder, then I would have to plead guilty. However, I would have thought that most members would welcome the same.

Consider this:
1. My observation was factual. i.e. At least one person - namely me - thinks your posting style could be interpreted as classic passive-aggressive behaviour.
2. I have no clear idea as to whether or not my perception was accurate.
3. If it isn't, I felt you would appreciate being made aware of the misunderstandings it might generate. If you are not interested in such input, just say so.
4. So I cannot see how going through your exercise, interesting as it might be, would help to resolve that. Still, I'm open to having it explained.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't understand how the exercise relates to my observation about your posting style. Unless you think that I have a chip on my shoulder. If wanting direct communication, free of innuendo and not driven by an agenda, is having a chip on ones shoulder, then I would have to plead guilty. However, I would have thought that most members would welcome the same.

Ugh. No, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was asking how you respond to hostile posts. You suggested I change my approach. I was asking for an example of how you would do it differently. Never mind.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ugh. No, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was asking how you respond to hostile posts. You suggested I change my approach. I was asking for an example of how you would do it differently. Never mind.

Ok, now I see what you were trying to do. The current misunderstanding is down to my initial ineffective statement of the problem. (See my second statement in the signature below.)

My perception that your posting style was open to misinterpretation had nothing to do with your response to Ken's posts. Rather, I could fully see why Ken was upset. Your posting style in general just reads wrong to me. It's like you have this secret intent behind the thread that you just won't come straight out and reveal. If that's not the case, great. I just wanted to help you out by making you aware of that. As my opening post said, "Just a heads up".

I'm sorry I derailed your thread in my effort to be a good neighbour. I'll not comment on your style again.

 

[Radagast]

Second, we'll assume you want the conversation with the offender to proceed for some reason.

Waste of time. Just hit that "ignore" button, my friend.

 

[Radagast]

nm

 

[Resha Caner]

Waste of time.

Most of the time that's true, but sometimes the result is positive. I've had the same experience in real life, where I'm told certain family members are a waste of time, but I don't like to give up on people ... actually my wife is better at pulling people out of the mud. I've learned a lot from her.