|Part of a series on|
Fundamental science is either fundamental physics or basic science. To the phenomena or explanations of certain sciences, the term fundamental science attributes a causal or conceptual priority according to either of two, differing distinctions. More commonly, fundamental science is fundamental physics, held to underlie special sciences. Less commonly, fundamental science is basic science, distinguished from applied science.
Viewed as the fundamental science, fundamental physics underlies all other sciences—the special sciences—that rest upon, and in principle are derivable from, or conversely are reducible to, the objects and laws of fundamental physics. Less commonly, fundamental science is synonym to basic science, also termed pure science—principally physics, chemistry, and biology—held apart from applied sciences like engineering and biomedicine, which develop technology or techniques through translating portions of basic science.
Versus special science
Modeling fundamental interactions, fundamental physics is recognized in philosophy of science as fundamental science, presumed to be more basic than, that is, to underlie, all other sciences—such as astrophysics, chemistry, biology, geology, psychology, and economics—categorized as special sciences. Whereas fundamental physics has sought laws of universal regularity, special sciences normally include ceteris paribus laws, which are predictively accurate to high probability in "normal conditions" or with "all else equal", but have exceptions.
Not ceteris paribus, chemistry's laws seem exceptionless in their domain, and developed without the severe metaphysical and epistemological challenges encountered by physics concerning the natures of substance, space, and time, or encountered by biological sciences concerning the natures of life and mind. Yet chemistry's laws were presumably reduced to fundamental physics—to quantum mechanics and then quantum electrodynamics—and so chemistry is special science. For bridging physical sciences to biological sciences via biochemistry, however, chemistry has been viewed as the central science.
Versus applied science
Basic science is development and establishment of information to aid understanding of the world, whereas applied science uses portions of basic science to develop technology or technique establishing interventions to alter events or outcomes as desired. Although applied science can interface closely with basic science in contexts of research and development, applied science is commonly termed engineering, whereas basic science is often termed pure science. Basic or pure science has also, if less commonly, been called "fundamental science".
In this sense, fundamental science includes fundamental physics along with many special sciences—astrophysics, biology, chemistry, geology, and so on, within natural science and perhaps cognitive sciences, but generally excluding behavioral sciences like psychology and social sciences like economics—and excludes engineering, medical sciences, and epidemiology, for instance, which are applied sciences, set apart from basic/pure/fundamental science.
Common, populist errors mistake medicine, technology, and their uses for science. They can be grouped: STM (science, technology & medicine); STS (science, technology & society). Yet, though interrelated and influencing each other, they publish in different journals and have divergent aims, cultures, methods, principles, standards, and knowledge. Although the Nobel Prize committee, continuing its tradition begun in 1901, mixes basic science with applied science to annually award a single Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, the globe's longest continuing scientific society, the Royal Society of London, categorizes its awards by holding physical sciences and biological sciences apart from applied science, including apart from medical sciences.
- Wolfgang Spohn, The Laws of Belief: Ranking Theory and Its Philosophical Applications (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p 305.
- Alexander Reutlinger, Gerhard Schurz & Andreas Hüttemann, "Ceteris paribus laws", sec 1.1 "Systematic introduction", in Edward N Zalta, ed, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2011 edn.
- Vítor Neves, ch 12 "Sciences as open systems—the case of economics", in Olga Pombo, Juan M Torres, John Symons & Shahid Rahman, eds, Special Sciences and the Unity of Science (Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 2012).
- Richard P Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, exp edn w/ new intro by A Zee (Princeton & London: Princeton University Press, 2006), p 5.
John H Schwarz, "Recent developments in superstring theory", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1998 Mar 17;95(6):2750–7, Fig 1.
- Bernard Davis, "The scientist's world", secs "Technology" & "Limited scope of science", Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 2000 Mar;64(1):1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000.
- James McCormick, "Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine", Occasional Paper #80 (London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001), pp 3–6 (orig pub JHU Press, Perspect Biol Med, 1993).
- Gerard Piel, "Science and the next fifty years", sec "Applied vs basic science", Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 1954 Jan;10(1) 17–20, p 18.
- E Holtzman, "Science, philosophy, and society: Some recent books", International Journal of Health Services, 1981;11(1):123–49.
P M Strong & K, McPherson, "Natural science and medicine: Social science and medicine: Some methodological controversies", Social Science & Medicine, 1982;16(6):643–57.
Lucien R Karhausen, "Causation: The elusive grail of epidemiology", Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 2000;3(1):59–67.
- Richard Smith, "The trouble with medical journals", secs "The poor science of medical journals" & "Science for the unscientific", Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006 Mar;99(3):115–9. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.3.115.
- L Eisenberg, "Science in medicine: Too much or too little and too limited in scope?", American Journal of Medicine, 1988 Mar;84(3 Pt 1):483–91.
Juanne N Clarke, Stephanie Arnolda, Michelle Everest & Kyle Whitfield, "The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences", Sociology of Science and Medicine, 2007 Jan;64(1):164–73.
- K Bayertz & P Nevers, "Biology as technology", Clio Medica, 1998;48:108–32.
John V Pickstone & Michael Worboys, "Focus: Between and beyond 'histories of science' and 'histories of medicine'—introduction", Isis, 2011 Mar;102(1):97–101.
- Lester S King, "Medicine in the USA: Historical vignettes: XI: Medicine seeks to be 'scientific'", Journal of the American Medical Association, 1983 May 13;249(18):2475–9. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330420025028.
Tom Marshall, "Scientific knowledge in medicine: A new clinical epistemology?", Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 1997 Apr;3(2):133–8.
Z Zalewski, "Importance of philosophy of science to the history of medical thinking", Croatian Medical Journal, 1999 Mar;40(1):8–13.
Kevork Hopayian, "Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: Restating the hypotheticodeductive model—part two", British Journal of General Practice, 2004 May54(502):402–3.
A Skurvydas, "New methodology in biomedical science: Methodological errors in classical science", Medicina (Kaunas), 2005;41(1):7–16.
Ronald A Arky, "Abe Flexner, where are you? We need you!", Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 2007;118:89–96.
Peter Byass, "The democratic fallacy in matters of clinical opinion: Implications for analysing cause-of-death data", Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 2011 Jan 11;8(1):1. doi:10.1186/1742-7622-8-1.
M Brandon Westover, Kenneth D Westover & Matt T Bianchi, "Significance testing as perverse probabilistic reasoning", BMC Medicine, 2011 Feb 28;9:20. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-20.
Alfredo Morabia, "Epidemiological causality", History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 2005;27(3–4):365-79.
Michael Kundi, "Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence", Environmental Health Perspectives, 2006 Jul;114(7):969–74.
Andrew C Ward, "The role of causal criteria in causal inferences: Bradford Hill's 'aspects of association'", Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, 2009 Jun 17;6:2. doi:10.1186/1742-5573-6-2.
Gary Taubes, "The soft science of dietary fat", Science, 2001 Mar 30;291(5513):2536–45. doi:10.1126/science.291.5513.2536.
Georg W Kreutzberg, "Scientists and the marketplace of opinions", EMBO Reports, 2005 May;6(5):393–96.
John Worrall, "Evidence: Philosophy of science meets medicine", Journal of Evaluation Clinical Practice, 2010 Apr;16(2):356–62. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01400.x.
- "Medals, Awards & Prize lectures", The Royal Society, Website accessed 22 Sep 2013.