Talk:Hierarchy of the sciences: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:38, 14 May 2024

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

The answer is … 42?

Is there a tongue-in-cheek joke in the “life, universe and everything” illustration, given that the range of the exponents is 42? Bjornte (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does Formal Science really most fundamental ?

Does Formal Science really most fundamental ? Math is no more than a formal and a quantitative language. Logic is just a thinking tools. They are not really a science but a language that widely use in science and scientific research. In the top middle level of the science hierarchy, like psychology and sociology, we often use languages more than maths to describe psychological and social phenomenon, especially for stuff like consciousness, emotions, values, politics, ethics, they are often describe as language rather than mathematics. However, if we talk the most top in the hierarchy of the sciences, like astronomy, cosmology, earth science, we keep use math.

Revision as of 11:36, 14 May 2024 edit Cloud29371 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,549 edits Does Formal Science really most fundamental ? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:38, 14 May 2024 edit undo Cloud29371 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,549 edits →‎Does Formal Science really most fundamental ? Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	== Does Formal Science really most fundamental ? ==		== Does Formal Science really most fundamental ? ==
	Does Formal Science really most fundamental ? Math is no more than a formal and a quantitative language. Logic is just a thinking tools. In the top middle level of the science hierarchy, like psychology and sociology, we often use languages more than maths to describe psychological and social phenomenon, especially for stuff like consciousness, emotions, values, politics, ethics, they are often describe as language rather than mathematics. However, if we talk the most top in the hierarchy of the sciences, like astronomy, cosmology, earth science, we keep use math.		Does Formal Science really most fundamental ? Math is no more than a formal and a quantitative language. Logic is just a thinking tools. They are not really a science but a language that widely use in science and scientific research. In the top middle level of the science hierarchy, like psychology and sociology, we often use languages more than maths to describe psychological and social phenomenon, especially for stuff like consciousness, emotions, values, politics, ethics, they are often describe as language rather than mathematics. However, if we talk the most top in the hierarchy of the sciences, like astronomy, cosmology, earth science, we keep use math.