Which science has best served humanity? (title fixed)

r3nu4l

It's a question with no right answer but I wonder what other people think. From the start, let's just say that this is a bit of fun as well as being a bit serious so try not to get worked up if you don't agree with something

So I and millions of others are alive today simply because of advances in Biology (and therefore medicine). Infant mortality has plummeted and we all live longer thanks to Biology.

However, I can't help thinking that life would be tough without the advances in chemistry and materials science, we wouldn't have many of our cleaning products only for formulation scientists and the chemists who synthesised the chemicals in them, we also wouldn't have plastics for example, so my office chair might be made of wood and I could get splinters as it aged.

Speaking of office chairs, without maths, physics and computer science, I wouldn't be on this forum and would probably be bored a lot of the time.

So I ask you, what science, in your opinion has contributed most to humanity and why?

Dave147

The 'scence' of spelling.. sorry couldn't help myself.

r3nu4l

Dave147 wrote: »

The 'scence' of spelling.. sorry couldn't help myself.

Yeah, my keyboard is sticky today, stupid wireless keyboards
I'll fix it now smartarse Dave147.

AtomicHorror

r3nu4l wrote: »

It's a question with no right answer but I wonder what other people think. From the start, let's just say that this is a bit of fun as well as being a bit serious so try not to get worked up if you don't agree with something

So I and millions of others are alive today simply because of advances in Biology (and therefore medicine). Infant mortality has plummeted and we all live longer thanks to Biology.

However, I can't help thinking that life would be tough without the advances in chemistry and materials science, we wouldn't have many of our cleaning products only for formulation scientists and the chemists who synthesised the chemicals in them, we also wouldn't have plastics for example, so my office chair might be made of wood and I could get splinters as it aged.

Speaking of office chairs, without maths, physics and computer science, I wouldn't be on this forum and would probably be bored a lot of the time.

So I ask you, what science, in your opinion has contributed most to humanity and why?

Many of the novel chemical entities that become medicines are synthesised by chemists rather than biologists. I still prefer biology though, since our knowledge is used to make all that stuff go.

My vote goes to the physicists who, if the Fear Brigade are correct, should be ending the world sometime in the next 24 hours by switching on the LHC.

seamus

Mathematics > all.

AtomicHorror

seamus wrote: »

Mathematics > all.

Sure, if you're not all that into reality.

r3nu4l

seamus wrote: »

Mathematics > all.

A simplistic argument for a very good claim.

thebaldsoprano

seamus wrote: »

Mathematics > all.

I like!

Dunno what the hell people have against such a simple statement that is obviously correct.

I'd actually go with physics/engineering though for many reasons, starting with taking us out of the caves and into huts.

PurpleFistMixer

I'd go with physics... totally non-biased, it being my science of choice. Possibly engineering. Technology like, computers, cars, all that jazz, definitely affected us hugely if not improved our quality of life. Difficult to say though, if a science isn't useful it'll just fizzle away.
Which leads one to wonder, which is the least useful science? : p

Saruman

Scientology of course

thebaldsoprano

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Which leads one to wonder, which is the least useful science? : p

Hmmm, let me check the diagram...
'Sociology' by the looks of things.

Now that one just might be right! :eek:

Irish Halo

I think Seamus's XKCD cartoon partly answers the question in that the are all so interrelated. In my opinion it is the application of the scientific method in simple cases which has benefited mankind the most e.g. John Snow and the Cholera outbreak in London (http://www.winwaed.com/sci/cholera/john_snow.shtml)

Science has codified the necessity of stepping back, thinking and theorising continuously refining and purely in human life term that has helped combat diseases and outbreaks purely from someone going "wait a minute these cases are not unrelated". I think I'm advocating medical research but not in a big pharma way but I'm not sure.

In another completely partisan reckoning I say Chemistry cause that's what my BA is in

artieanna

I would have to say probably biology, because of all the advances in medicine. The result of this is we have not been wiped out and are around to enjoy the benefits of all the other sciences;)...

maki

Logic
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Partial_ordering_of_the_sciences_Balaban_Klein_Scientometrics2006_615-637.svg
Done and done

Bijoux

Well, since you said humanity, it would probably have to be biology.
After all, the human race could be extinct if it wasnt for vaccines (E.g. smallpox)....advances in the medical field and all that jazz, its all been said here already.

But if the question was more general (as us humans aren't the be-all and end-all of everything), I would have to go with physics...or indeed mathematics. Logic shows the power of the human brain, mathematics challenges the thought process, and physics gives us a better understanding of the universe, helps us make sense of things, and (e.g. in the field of quantum physics) can challenge your everyday thinking. Also I'm studying physics, so I'm a bit biased! :cool:

AtomicHorror

Bijoux wrote: »

Well, since you said humanity, it would probably have to be biology.
After all, the human race could be extinct if it wasnt for vaccines (E.g. smallpox)....advances in the medical field and all that jazz, its all been said here already.

Not to mention germ theory and the sanitation revolution in general.

moggins7

i'll go with physics simply because(leaving out the obvious things it's responsable for transport, communications etc.) the subjects being studied now(e.g string theory) are just mind boggling to say the least... they have thrown our everyday thinkings of what we and the universe is made up out the window.

and i just have to make my statement that biology isn't a real science. bloody biologists!:D

nyarlothothep

political science, social science, football science and a good deal of psychology is not science

AtomicHorror

moggins7 wrote: »

and i just have to make my statement that biology isn't a real science. bloody biologists!:D

If you'd like to discard our findings, feel free. When you're dying of TB your string theory won't save you. :pac:

dfx-

moggins7 wrote: »

and i just have to make my statement that biology isn't a real science. bloody biologists!:D

QFT :pac:

The world, physics people and the greatest mathematicians are just in a whirlpool of chemistry :cool:

Sailormoon

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Sure, if you're not all that into reality.

reality is an illusion

r3nu4l

Okay, less of the bashing of other sciences, concentrate on why any of the sciences has best served humanity

Pgibson

Bijoux wrote: »

I would have to go with physics.. Also I'm studying physics, so I'm a bit biased! :cool:

Famous quotation:

"Physics is the only real science. The rest of the sciences are just stamp collecting."
-- Ernest Rutherford.


.

r3nu4l

Pgibson wrote: »

Famous quotation:

"Physics is the only real science. The rest of the sciences are just stamp collecting."
-- Ernest Rutherford.


.

[mod hat on]This is the second and last warning I'm giving. Less bashing of other sciences and more talk about why you think a certain science has served humanity best[/mod hat on]

Pgibson

r3nu4l wrote: »

[mod hat on]This is the second and last warning I'm giving. Less bashing of other sciences and more talk about why you think a certain science has served humanity best[/mod hat on]

Not bashing anything.

Rutherford's comment is one of the most famous quotations from the 20th century.

Just thought I might pop it in.

If biology can explain "Consciousness" some day then Biology may yet have the last laugh.

In a very real sense all of the sciences are branches of physics.

.

r3nu4l

Pgibson wrote: »

Rutherford's comment is one of the most famous quotations from the 20th century.

I don't care, using it in the manner you did after my warning isn't on.
Rutherford banned from popular science : D

If biology can explain "Consciousness" some day then Biology may yet have the last laugh.

I have an interesting book called "Consciousness" at home that looks at the state of neuroscience today. Ironically, the recent experiment using rat neurons to 'power' a robot (see Guan Yin's thread) is a combination of physics and biology that may one day yield the very results we are looking for.

Today more than ever it is harder to delineate the sciences, nanotechnology is one area where it's almost impossible at times to say where the biology ends and the physics begins. This is why we must look to the past to see if any science can be said to have contributed more than another.

It's a question as easily answered as "How long is a piece of string?" but worth hearing peoples take on it.

moggins7

Pgibson wrote: »

Famous quotation:

"Physics is the only real science. The rest of the sciences are just stamp collecting."
-- Ernest Rutherford.


.

its not really science bashing...

i love this quote mainly for the fact its so ironic seeing as he's basically the father of atomic theory...

moggins7

r3nu4l wrote: »

It's a question as easily answered as "How long is a piece of string?" but worth hearing peoples take on it.

it's hardly the lenght that matters. would it not be its tension and vibrational frequency that matters???:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Pgibson

Anyway, Medical Science did the most "good" to ordinary people whereas Chemical Science did the most "bad".

Chemists invented TNT,Gelignite, Semtex, Agent Orange, Napalm etc .

The effects of which Medical Science tried to "undo".


.

Creature

Pgibson wrote: »

Anyway, Medical Science did the most "good" to ordinary people whereas Chemical Science did the most "bad".

Chemists invented TNT,Gelignite, Semtex, Agent Orange, Napalm etc .

The effects of which Medical Science tried to "undo".


.

Its still alll chemistry though. The medicinal chemists that gave us vaccines and all the important drugs are still chemists just like those that gave us formulations, plactics and other important chemical discoveries.


Besides, physicists invented the atomic bomb .

moggins7

Creature wrote: »

Besides, physicists invented the atomic bomb .

the atomic bomb had to happen though....

and chemists also gave us nearly every illegal drug... but they also needed to happen..
i suppose we should be thankful for chemists seeing as they gave us fuel for transport electricity etc.. but then i suppose there'd be no need for it was it not for physicists though chemists did discover the materials needed to make such things.... hmmm ever increasing circles(sorry just wanted to include a carcass refrence there somewhere:))

ChocolateSauce

I'd say biology. Yes, chemistry is critical to drug development, but without knowledge of biology it would be shooting in the dark.

Pgibson

theozster wrote: »

I'd say biology.

Biology needs Microscopes which came from Physics as explained in this poem:

The Microscope
by Maxine Kumin

Anton Leeuwenhoek was Dutch.
He sold pincushions, cloth, and such.
The waiting townsfolk fumed and fussed
As Anton’s dry goods gathered dust.
He worked, instead of tending store,
At grinding special lenses for
A microscope. Some of the things
He looked at were: mosquitoes’ wings,
the hairs of sheep, the legs of lice,
the skin of people, dogs, and mice;
ox eyes, spiders’ spinning gear,
fishes’ scales, a little smear
of his own blood, and best of all,
the unknown, busy, very small
bugs that swim and bump and hop
inside a simple water drop.

Impossible! Most Dutchmen said.
This Anton’s crazy in the head!
We ought to ship him off to Spain!
He says he’s seen a housefly’s brain!
He says the water that we drink
Is full of bugs! He’s mad, we think!
They called him dumkopf, which means dope.
That’s how we got the microscope.

.

eZe^

When we start making more efficient nuclear fusion reactors, ones that can be used to commercially make energy for our homes, lets see which science wins this argument... :pac:

a5y

Villager:
"If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood."

Bedevere:
"And therefore?"

Villager:
"A witch!"

The scientific method. Need I say more?

lemd

I'll say physics, it allowed us to create homes where we wanted (as opposed to caves where they existed), weapons for hunting right up to computers, internet and the LHC. But then again i'm an engineer and therefore a bit biased.

Pgibson

lemd wrote: »

I'll say physics, it allowed us to create homes where we wanted (as opposed to caves where they existed), weapons for hunting right up to computers, internet and the LHC. But then again i'm an engineer and therefore a bit biased.

It was biology which made engineers...so biology came first.

Biological systems are trillions of times more "advanced" that mere engineering systems.

(The ongoing battle against cancer and HIV etc. show up the awesome complexity of even "simple" biological systems.)

A single molecule of DNA made the body.. and the brain... of Einstein.

Biological science has saved many more lives than even military engineers have killed.

Penicillin etc. has saved hundreds of millions of lives.


.

eZe^

Pgibson wrote: »

It was biology which made engineers...so biology came first.

Biological systems are trillions of times more "advanced" that mere engineering systems.

(The ongoing battle against cancer and HIV etc. show up the awesome complexity of even "simple" biological systems.)

A single molecule of DNA made the body.. and the brain... of Einstein.

Biological science has saved many more lives than even military engineers have killed.

Penicillin etc. has saved hundreds of millions of lives.


.

Oh yes, and how did we discover D.N.A again????

Pgibson

eZe^ wrote: »

Oh yes, and how did we discover D.N.A again????

Crick and Watson used their......BRAINS.

.

moggins7

Pgibson wrote: »

It was biology which made engineers...so biology came first.

Biological systems are trillions of times more "advanced" that mere engineering systems.

(The ongoing battle against cancer and HIV etc. show up the awesome complexity of even "simple" biological systems.)

A single molecule of DNA made the body.. and the brain... of Einstein.

Biological science has saved many more lives than even military engineers have killed.

Penicillin etc. has saved hundreds of millions of lives.


.

HA!

it was man that made engineers. the brain has jus been nurtured in such a way over the years that that person grew into a engineer/physicist/(every other job title there is)

so you've watched a bacteria/ virus for a couple of decades. how exactly, oh wait i know. microscopes. and the data has been recorded on... oh wait computers, and has been sent over the internet and been published...
oh cand the drugs that go towards battling these viruses have been created by biologists chemists yes?

sorry this might be hard to cope with but biology is WAY down the pecking order when it comes to the greatest science to serve humanity...

physicists are even taking over your field by studying the brain and seeing how it works and how people can be helped...

(and i don't mean to sound like an arsehole but hey wat ya gonna do)

Pgibson

moggins7 wrote: »

HA!

it was man that made engineers. the brain has jus been nurtured in such a way over the years that that person grew into a engineer/physicist/(every other job title there is)

so you've watched a bacteria/ virus for a couple of decades. how exactly, oh wait i know. microscopes. and the data has been recorded on... oh wait computers, and has been sent over the internet and been published...
oh cand the drugs that go towards battling these viruses have been created by biologists chemists yes?

sorry this might be hard to cope with but biology is WAY down the pecking order when it comes to the greatest science to serve humanity...

physicists are even taking over your field by studying the brain and seeing how it works and how people can be helped...

(and i don't mean to sound like an arsehole but hey wat ya gonna do)

Don't understand your lingo Moggins7......

Is that a dialect of Swahili you are using?

Outer Mongolian perhaps?

.

r3nu4l

Let's try and keep things civil around here!

Okay, so far the results of this thread have pretty much confirmed my own beliefs.

1) All sciences are dependent on one another to grow and survive.
2) Put two scientists in a room and ask them to come to a consensus on any issue and they will just find more points to disagree on

Pgibson

r3nu4l wrote: »

Put two scientists in a room and ask them to come to a consensus on any issue and they will just find more points to disagree on

That's ECONOMISTS you are talking about.

There is remarkable consensus amongst scientists.

Disagreements are usually minor in the extreme,about points of detail..and amicable.

(Astronomy has indeed a few hold-outs against the Big Bang theory, but very very few.Biology has NO objectors to the Theory of Evolution.)

Science is DATA driven..not OPINION driven after all.


.

Mucco

Pgibson wrote: »

Famous quotation:
"Physics is the only real science. The rest of the sciences are just stamp collecting."
-- Ernest Rutherford.

Didn't he win the 1908 Nobel prize for stamp collecting?

r3nu4l

Pgibson wrote: »

That's ECONOMISTS you are talking about.

There is remarkable consensus amongst scientists.

Disagreements are usually minor in the extreme,about points of detail..and amicable.

(Astronomy has indeed a few hold-outs against the Big Bang theory, but very very few.Biology has NO objectors to the Theory of Evolution.)

Science is DATA driven..not OPINION driven after all.


.

Are you sure you are a scientist??? Ask Professor A and Professor B working in immunology as to the best way to design an ELISA and they will both give you different answers regarding the optimal molarity and type of salt to be used in the buffer. They will argue over whether distilled or deioninsed water is best, They will then inevitable tear each others throats out while explaining why their opinion is most important and at the same time hand you a grant application to prove their idea... That's what I'm talking about. The big theories? Sure there is agreement...but the devil is in the detail and that's where us scientists love to disagree

Pgibson

r3nu4l wrote: »

Are you sure you are a scientist??? Ask Professor A and Professor B working in immunology as to the best way to design an ELISA and they will both give you different answers regarding the optimal molarity and type of salt to be used in the buffer. They will argue over whether distilled or deioninsed water is best, They will then inevitable tear each others throats out while explaining why their opinion is most important and at the same time hand you a grant application to prove their idea... That's what I'm talking about. The big theories? Sure there is agreement...but the devil is in the detail and that's where us scientists love to disagree

Those are MINOR details which eventually come out in the wash.

Usually BOTH methods have merit in such circumstances.

One or both methods will prove to be effective once the experiments are done.

Not BIG questions at all.

(More than one way to skin a cat.)

.

.

0utpost31

Geologee! Without it you wouldn't have fuel....

kevmy

Physics. I would say Maths but in my opinion it's not a true science. It's too pure and involves no experimentation. It is only a tool of science.

As for the post regarding biology being better because it made the brains that made the physicist. If you want to go that route what made the biology which made the brains? I think you will find it all comes down to the big bang which is firmly in the physics camp.

As for how physics has benefited humanity most it's because it bridges the divide between the theoretical and the applied, it makes all the others possible and provides the tools for doing so while also providing plenty of end product itself.
Physicists are more likely to cross over to other disciplines than the other way around. Physics explains the fundamental like gravity without which understanding we would go nowhere. It goes from the large (Theory of Everything) to the minuscule (quantum theory) - which curiously enough are essentially the same thing - and still gives ultimate end product like the semiconductor, the microscope, the mobile phone, the power generation, the list goes on.

The only one which comes near imo is biology but it loses out due to it's limitations in scope compared to Physics

napapa

I look at physics as the rule book of life...using these rules one can create almost (why can't i get this damn wittig to work) anything...:D

Its a chemical romance...

Gaspode

What does the op mean by which science? Surely science is a way of thinking about the world, and the designations (biology, physics, chemistry, ets) argued over so far are just the different areas scientists are thinking about?

r3nu4l

deswalsh wrote: »

What does the op mean by which science? Surely science is a way of thinking about the world, and the designations (biology, physics, chemistry, ets) argued over so far are just the different areas scientists are thinking about?

Bingo Give the man a prize (so long as it's not from my wallet...credit crunch dontyaknow?)

Yep, to be honest, there is such an intermingling now in the sciences that it's difficult to say that any one science has been more important than another.

Of course, that's just my opinion...