What are some good scientific fields not spoken of often on /sci/?

>>7781932
*STEM, not scientific

>>7781932
math

>>7781932
conciousness

Engineering

Geology
Paleontology

>>7781932
Nuclear physics :^)

womens studies

quantitative finance :^)

>>7781932
Pure Mathematics.

Btw, I can't help but laugh at how that graph quite literally says that no one will ever want to hire you in any industry because of fear that you only had to take a one semester long introductory class on the subject.

Assuming a 4 year degree with 6 classes per semester this is what would happen:

First 3 semesters are completely filled with college level math

1 and 1/3 semesters for the introductory classes in each of those subjects.

Another 1 and 1/3 semesters in the first actual classes in each of those subjects

Another 1 and 1/3 semesters in the introductory classes of the advanced topics in those classes.

The last semester for the first mechatronics classes

and you are done. 8 semesters has gone by and you have the knowledge of a sophomore in all those subjects, while someone graduating in say, Electrical Engineering is already a master in electronics.

>>7783132
>scientific fields
>math

you're a lousy bum and a poor troll

>>7783135
Mathematics is the purest of all sciences.

Mathematics fits the dictionary definition of science

Applied mathematicians are pretty much scientists, even to the point of working/researching with physicists and engineers

Without pure math there wouldn't even be science, because all sciences are literally applied applied math.

>>7783142
> mathematics
> no experimentation
> brings nothing new or useful for the welfare of humanity
> scribbling hypothetical garbage to a chalkboard all day
> science
Math is the most useless hobby on earth. It's even more irrelevant than IQ

>>7783149
It's a formal science, you dumbfuck.

>>7783142
math is NOT science. it does not fit any sensible definition of science.

>>7783149
kek yoy're going to make him pop

>>7783142
math is a tool, like a hammer

yes, you use a hammer to build a house, but you would not call the hammer a "house", yet you still use the hammer to build all kinds of shit, indubiutably

>>7783150
no matter how you twist it, it is not a science, stop being an autist

>>7783149
>no experimentation

Oh, believe me that mathematicians wished that this was true. Imagine how easy life would be if everything just immediately followed and as such we did not need to do any kind of experimentation to find new knowledge.

tldr: you are wrong

>brings nothing new or useful

Applied mathematics discoveries are immediately useful
Pure mathematics discoveries will be useful in a couple of decades

>hypothetical garbage

What do you even mean with this one?

Math is a science however, don't think that you are hurting me or anyone by denying it. Math is still glorious and pure. The term science has already been tainted by disciplines like sociology and biology. I would never want to associate myself with scientists.

Stay butthurt, science peasant.

>>7783154
>math is a tool

applied math is a tool, it says so right in its name
pure math is definitely not a tool, you're studying it for itself.

>>7783151
>any sensible definition

Science:
>a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths

Okay, so you deny that mathematics is a branch of knowledge and that it deals with any facts.

According to this anon:
1+1 = ?

This is why it sucks that I have to talk with inferior majors.

>>7783160
>a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths

this is not a sensible definition. absolutely not. you have clearly never studied anything about the problem of demarcation and the philosophy of science. do NOT talk authoritatively about things you have not bothered to study just because you think your opinions sound good.

>>7783157
>Pure mathematics discoveries will be useful in a couple of decades
Says who? There's no reason for this to be true

>>7783157
> Math is glorious and pure
Tell me one fucking use of pure math. Explain how it even needs to be studied if you don't apply it to anything ? If you practise the applications of it like engineering or physics, why be a dumb smelly useless mathematician ?

>>7783164
>I don't accept your dictionary definition so let us discuss with my own made up definition that nobody but me accepts

For fucks sake man, are you trying hard to look retarded or something?

>philosophy of science
Oh god... is there some leaderboard of internet stupidity that you are trying to get in? Who the fuck cares about the philosophy of science.

You know who cares about the philosophy of science, faggots like you who do nothing.

You know who doesn't care or have time to care about the philosophy of science? Actual scientist employed to do science and be useful.

so >memer confirmed

>Says who

Anyone with a fucking brain you sperg.

You are using the invention of pure mathematicians so fight pointlessly against them.

Turing machines, originally pure mathematics before code monkey studies was established, pretty much made it possible to make our first computers. First because it was the first time this idea was explored in this depth and second because we could make predictions about what would the limits be of real computers that did not yet exist.

>>7783180
Let me sum it up with this:

I am completely sure that the first mathematicians who started building up the field of Topology had no idea that today, it would be useful to study the folding of our DNA, that it would literally make quantum field theory possible to create and many others.

>>7783181
>dictionary definition
>one of the definitions on dictionary.com is the definitive definition because I say so

no

>Who the fuck cares about the philosophy of science?

It's fine if you don't, but then don't come here acting like you know shit about the problem of demarcation of science. If you didn't take at least an introductory class in philosophy of science in your early years or so that's your own problem, stay out of discussions related to it.

>>7783181
>the studies of theory or computing led to the creation of the first computer

absolutely not, history is NOT a single thread that deterministically leads up to things linearly, it's branching and complicated. the history of computers is well documented. I have a great article on this, I'll actually try to dig it up for you.

You sound terrible pretending to know all these things you never bothered to seriously study, just going with your opinions as fact because they sound good

>>7783192
A definition made and agreed by professionals of language is worth way more than your special made up fairy tale definition you faggot.

>This faggot is actually claiming that Turing machines didn't do nothing for the study of actual computers and computation.

Indeed you are right. I too will put on a blindfool and willingly ignore that even today, computer scientists study Turing machines because they are that useful.

Pfff, why would they study turing machines right? We have real ones now! Oh man, these people. So retarded right!

why are mathfags always so cringy

File: tumblr_n19lpw49ew1rctz11o1_500[1].gif (251KB, 500x443px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 500x443px

>>7783184
> Pure math is used to study the unfolding of our DNA
> Quantum field theory
Mother of god...

>>7783197
>a definition
>a

it's an ok definition for general speech. as you said it, for general language usage. it's not a sensible definition for discussing demarcation. the best listed is this one:

>systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation

the rest you said is just embarrassing lol. can't find the article, sorry

>>7783213
Don't argue semantics.

>>7783213
That's the definition of natural science, you fucking retard.

>>7783206
autism