3 ms·

I have a PhD in physics and even physics itself is in a poor state, yet I totally get why all the other sciences envy physics: they're even worse

mensetmanusman 2y ago
This is explained by complexity. The more components involved in a field, the less feasible the scientific method is. (E.g. math > physics > chemistry > materials science > cell biology > human biology > psychology > sociology)
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Math is not a science. Math is fundamentally opposite of science. In science nothing can be proven. Proof is exclusively the domain of mathematics. The Lack of proof is foundational to science, it’s built into the core axiom of the scientific method. This axiom is actually the reason why science is so “bad” because nothing can really be confirmed. But something like psychology is on a whole different level because of the replication crisis. Psychology has outright fraud going on.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    Following in the true style of mathematics, I propose that you two actually agree, and that math has 0 of parent's "components involved in a field".
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      That's what I was thinking, math has 0 atoms, physics works with ones of atoms, chemistry tens, polymer physics, tens of thousands, biology trillions, psychology 10^25, etc. :)
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Nah in his reply he’s talking about complexity.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Testability is also a big issue. It's extremely expensive, labor-intensive, and time-consuming to build a facility like the LHC to test physical theories and develop new ones. But that's nothing compared to how hard it is to conduct reproducible, unambiguous, and actionable psychological studies on large populations. Ethical experimentation involving live human beings is always going to be one of science's greatest challenges, IMO. There are questions we're not allowed to ask and answers we're not allowed to use. That hasn't been true in physics since the Renaissance.
lukan 2y ago
I think pure math might be better off.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

This is explained by complexity. The more components involved in a field, the less feasible the scientific method is. (E.g. math > physics > chemistry > materials science > cell biology > human biology > psychology > sociology)

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Math is not a science. Math is fundamentally opposite of science. In science nothing can be proven. Proof is exclusively the domain of mathematics. The Lack of proof is foundational to science, it’s built into the core axiom of the scientific method. This axiom is actually the reason why science is so “bad” because nothing can really be confirmed. But something like psychology is on a whole different level because of the replication crisis. Psychology has outright fraud going on.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Following in the true style of mathematics, I propose that you two actually agree, and that math has 0 of parent's "components involved in a field".
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    That's what I was thinking, math has 0 atoms, physics works with ones of atoms, chemistry tens, polymer physics, tens of thousands, biology trillions, psychology 10^25, etc. :)
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Nah in his reply he’s talking about complexity.
CamperBob2 2y ago
Testability is also a big issue. It's extremely expensive, labor-intensive, and time-consuming to build a facility like the LHC to test physical theories and develop new ones. But that's nothing compared to how hard it is to conduct reproducible, unambiguous, and actionable psychological studies on large populations. Ethical experimentation involving live human beings is always going to be one of science's greatest challenges, IMO. There are questions we're not allowed to ask and answers we're not allowed to use. That hasn't been true in physics since the Renaissance.

lukan 2y ago

I think pure math might be better off.