To answer here, taking into account other suggestions, i believe that the less we cut science into pieces the better the result. Specialisation has resulted to be a negative trend in university education (all over the world). When industry seeks for a fresh graduate biologist, industry seeks for a strong general background, not specialisation.
That said, I would not go much farther in cutting sciences into pieces than Mathematics Physics Biology Medicine Maybe I am overlooking one or two important "cuts". Suggest. These sections allow interdisciplinary contacts. Today, more perhaps than ever, it is hard to do good science that is not interdisciplinary. The more you cut into pieces, the more you isolate scientists because, for economy reasons, one tends to scan only his specialized section. These are my ideas of an university organic chemist with parallel education in biological sciences. In particular, i am against "tasks" with respect to "disciplines". Tasks change with small changes in the society. Disciplines are for a long time a reference point. regards francesco pietra On Monday 15 May 2006 04:57, Ben Burton wrote: > > >FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use > > >the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it > > >is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful, > > >is not bound to modelling the physical world. > > > > I think of new ways to try and simulate things faster or in a simpler > > way. Then i'll write the simulation and try the ideas and measure its > > performance and accuracy. This applied mathematics is very much like > > a real-world engineering problem with hypothesis and experimentation. > > Hmm, perhaps I didn't express myself properly. Of course, any > discipline can use hypothesis and experimentation, from the arts to > astrology. > > What I mean is: in the physical sciences, hypothesis and experimentation > are fundamental to building "scientific truth". This is because the > basis of science is trying to understand the physical world, formulating > theories that explain what is seen, and then testing and refining these > theories. This is what the "scientific method" is for. > > On the other hand, "mathematical truth" is based on pure logic and > proof. It need not have any link to the physical world (though it often > does). Experimentation can be a useful guide, but it is certainly not > essential, and indeed experimental results are generally not accepted as > a method of establishing mathematical facts. The result of all of this > is that mathematicians can be more sure of their truths than scientists, > but on the other hand their work is often somewhat less useful from a > practical point of view. > > Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]