Which science is the least important one?

[noname223]

I think this is a question most smart people will laugh at and most scientists would reject to answer it.
But I am running out of ideas and why not.

I had some debates with an acquaintance with quite a diametrical world view compared to me. He is into pseudoscience. The shit he believes is so ridiculous. Most people who disagree with him and his views would be just mentally ill ( like most or all leftwingers)
I think it does not have much to do with science. Rather they construct statistics and misinterpret them so that they confirm their world view.

We had an argument about gender studies. I have to admit I am no expert concerning them but he had even way less knowledge. He says they are no real sciene. Quite ironic when I think what bullshit he calls science.

Here are some sciences which I consider less important. It is rather subjective and less objective.

Maybe one could say philosophy. I like philosophy but it has less pratical value than other subjects. The most important aspect is probably ethics.
Some languages which don't have much practical benefits.
Maybe music or some forms of art. They have huge values concerning culture I don't deny that. But compared to physics, medicine, IT, biology I think they have less pracitcal worth.

Honestly I just recognize some people might be a little bit angry about my considerations. But I already started the thread so there is no return. It is rather subjective and not objective as I said. Maybe it is stupid or ignorant to argument with their pratical worth. Probably I have a huge bias on this topic.

So I will end this thread and wait for some angry comments.

 

[sosjet]

what kind of languages you are thinking about?

 

[noname223]

what kind of languages you are thinking about?

I don't have exactly one in my mind. But there are probably some languages which are not widespread and are extremely seldom and were used only for a very short time period.

Maybe one could argument but if you are exactly expert on this language you will have very rare knowledge. But if the language was barely used I don't know whether the benefit is really that big.

 

[freight_train]

gender studies are not real science. psychology has a lot of bs but also some good data. sociology is even more vague. everything else is good. also philosophy is not science

 

[Install-Gentoo]

gender studies is not a science, because you cannot perform experiments. It is a "study" or a "world view" but it's not a field of science.
Philosophy is mostly useless, yes, but I think there is some cases where it can be used like a science, though that might just be anthropology.

 

[Celerity]

As a former psych PhD student, I have no problem saying that the social sciences are less rigorous (AKA less "scientific") than the "hard sciences", but the issue can be more complicated than one might expect.

Multiple academic papers have actually been written on this topic and have become very popular due to the Replication Crisis plaguing academia at the moment. IFIRC, physics takes the number one spot followed by chemistry, biology, applied areas such as engineering and medicine, and then the social sciences. The social sciences, due to their heavy reliance on statistics and difficulty in making well-controlled experiments, have also been dubbed the "probabilistic sciences".

That said, the Replication Crisis has reared its ugly head in many areas even outside the squishy social sciences, and it isn't difficult to find even physicists who criticize their discipline for a lack of objectivity and opportunistic cash-grabbing behavior. Sabine Hossenfelder makes out a lot of research in physics to be highly speculative and a poor investment just like research in the social sciences. I was honestly surprised to find out the degree to which the "physics envy" social scientists feel may be exaggerated.

To answer your friend, gender studies is typically part of the humanities departments in universities and not psychology. That can be an arbitrary and historical decision but is usually not. I have seen gender studies academics rely much more heavily upon purely qualitative analysis of, say, literature rather than experiments or even questionnaires and statistics. Qualitative analysis has fallen out of favor in most psychology departments and is even condemned as pure pseudoscience by many. So, to sum it up, your friend is not completely wrong on that front.

To answer your question about the "most useless science", I would still have to probably go with a social science like psychology, sociology, or economics. It is impossible in many cases to separate one's political beliefs and moral sensibilities from their judgment when designing and evaluating research studies. Also, as I said, the field is a mess of statistics and dubious experiments. On the whole, they are very subjective and temperamental subjects with too many variables to account for and control. Creating a narrowly focused and tightly controlled experiment runs the risk of strangling the experiment's applicability to the real, messy world. Sure, you can now trust your numbers and make cleaner interpretations of the experimental effects, but how applicable are your conclusions to the real world where all the variables you removed are in play? Being social sciences, some experiments that could be conducted will never see the light of day because they are unethical. On very controversial topics, some questions cannot even be asked without backlash.

 

[Dot]

Th/ thrd raisss philsphocl qustns of its own

Frstly 'scnce' wld nd 2 b defind bcse art & musc wre mentnd in cnsidratns also
Othr qustn needd 2 ask wld b 'importnt 2 whom'

1 exmple - surgns mght hve a mre 'practcl' scienc of advncd biolgy b-hnd thm bt surgns wll oftn wnt musc 2 hlp thm sty focusd & rlaxd durng an operatn

Also mny 'scientsts' r oftn v cre8tve & imagntve ppl s/ th/ arts hlps thm 2 nurtre & exprss thr cre8tvty whch = also usd in thr rsearch or inventng - thy cn oftn b sdes of th/ sme coin bcse bth oftn rquire tht imagnatn -- e.g th/ physcst Brian Cx wh/ also usd 2 b ky-brd playr fr commrcl pp-bnd & also Brian May wh/ hs honrry doctr8 in Astronmy & = passn8 abt helpng youngr ppl b intrstd in outr spce

Sme sciencs jst lk @ hw th/ wrld wrks & othrs lk @ hw ppl wrk whle th/ arts brng ppl 2gthr

Tht b-ing sd - if ws trappd on islnd thn slf wld prbbly wnt a doctr & othrs whse knwldge wld hlp wth practcl survivl - s/ agn = vry cntextl questn

 

[CTB Dream]

Ultimate no clasw science it all separate one theory useless other ok, it all depend, some physicis useless some ok. It also not relate truth ,some science true also not use, say chemic number thousand no one rech .some psychlgy ok other no it all depend situation, see all thing separate scenario no general

 

[walt]

I don't know if you'd consider this a science and I'm not educated enough to have a pretty authoritative opinion here, but I'd say food science is pretty weak. All my life I remember articles going back and forth between opinions every single year. The media might also have something to do with it, more than the science itself.

It seems like a lot of these articles just get pushed out without any peer review and then thrown into the public sphere. Not even to mention at least in the US I know that food science is heavily lobbied and there are so many straight up lies about what we should and shouldn't be eating. Milk isn't as great as they say it is for you, at least for calcium. The food pyramid I think is also heavily contested.

 

[jackie_boy1337]

I think the psychologists who work as therapists would have to be the first on my chopping block.

That entire profession is the modern-day equivalent of snake oil.

 

[weightedrocks]

Food studies, fuck food.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Music and Art aren't anything to do with science to my mind. Science is the study of something that already exists. Creative subjects like Music and Art seek to create something new in the world. (Although I conceed the saying 'there's nothing new under the sun'- it's hard to be completely original when so much has come before. Still- the intention is usually there- unless you are a forger.) I suppose subjects like engineering are part way between the two. Still the distinction is made in the qualification you get- Bachelor of Arts, or Bachelor of Science.

In terms of what is more important- I'd say this world agrees with you... The Arts are always being pushed out in favour of science. Still- we're not all good at science! Some of us are better at art.

Sure- if there were fewer of us- then there would be the need to proritise certain more 'useful' subjects. As it is- this planet is overrun with humans and we all need something to do to support ourselves. We also NEED stuff to distract ourselves. Imagine your life wthout books, music, film, art, architecture.

Imagine if EVERYONE was so focused on researching stuff that nothing actually got built or used? The process of farming isn't a science surely? Unless we can start replicating food- like in Star Trek- that WOULD need science- we'd all be very brainy but starve to death.

Still- I expect you're right- the world as it is- on the way to ecological disaster, it probably would be better if there was more focus on science and how to reverse this mess.

Still- I can tell you- being of the artistic bent myself- when you force creative types into non creative jobs- they are utterly miserable. I don't think we start off all equally gifted in all the different subjects. I was utterly hopeless at mathematics. I tried REALLY hard and I had an amazing tutor which meant I didn't do too badly in the end- but naturally- I'm dreadful at it. Should people be pushed (even more than they are already) into doing subjects they are not particularly good at and in some cases- hate?!!

If you ARE talking about science- then- I really have no idea. I don't come from that world. Useful for what as well? If it's making money- then I imagine a good BSc in anything would be useful. If it's 'saving' humanity- maybe chemistry and biology would be good- try and work out what the hell to do with all the plastic everywhere. If you want to try and spare other planets from being infested with humans one day- maybe get rid of physics!