How deep are different science fields?

[weld]

How "deep" are different science fields?

Am I correct in assuming there's more depth to CS, physics and math than chemistry, life science and Earth science? What about economics, seems even if you become a top notch researcher in that field, the math seems real simple and shallow.

And then there's philosophy - is it even worth considering? Seems like a useless, dead field to me. The only still thriving is philosophy of language. But is linguistics even worth considering? Its kinda different in that it doesn't depend as much as on math as other fields, but geez, even Chomsky is highly regarded amongst linguists. =/ Besides it seems young and simple/uncomplicated/easy compared to other fields.


Furthermore, if one wants to become a scientist, how's the job market for research positions in NA? People here say all the time that physics is crowded, you won't get to become a pure mathematician, there's lots of low hanging fruit in CS, etc. Any truth to this or not?

And what about those other fields in terms of job prospects (Econ, linguistics, chem, genetics, Earth science, etc)? Good, bad, cutthroat competition, stressful, impossible to get a job, horror stories abound, etc? Basically if you got knowledge on this, any kind of knowledge, throw it out. I really need knowledge so I can solidify my opinion on lots of sciences. Also, I've heard that the medical science field is especially horrible to work in, with cutthroat competition and more plagiarism than nay other science field.

Then there's the following:

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page1.htm

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page2.htm

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415643

Does this mean immunology, neuroscience and the like are horrible fields where you must spend tons of time reading and citing other people's work like crazy? Personally I would rather be gaining new insight by my self and solving problems than reading tons of papers. I want to quickly start doing what I want to do and perform my job impressively and efficiently. From the looks of it, CS and math seems ideal, but there might be sides of the issue which I overlook. Any viewpoints on this? Anything else you can fill me in on, like how long it takes to be proficient enough to do research in different fields, how much co-op it requires and the chances of ending up mediocre?

Finally, I want to spend as much time researching as possible, I prefer to avoid teaching, bureaucracy and the like. How do I prepare my self the best to avoid trivial nonsense? Thanks for any help you may offer me.

 

[Kyle Stanley]

This question sounds like me a few years ago.

I asked an instructor a question like this several years ago... and I didn't like what they had to say because it was discouraging... and not one to give up on an idea... I asked another instructor and they gave me a complete opposite answer.

I think that the real answer depends on how far you really are willing to go. The further the better. The second instructor told me about an interesting new emerging field in biophysics... although this would intersect with the aforementioned field. There will always be low-hanging fruit and this is the stuff that salaries and bonuses are made of. Now, research... I have heard many differing opinions on this but most seem to say that you don't do research so much for the money because if you do you are in the wrong position. That is a situation that can get oppressive if you want my opinion. I want to go into research, why? Because of what it represents to the global community. I have given up aspirations of wealth, because for me a large part of my compensation would be the ability to take part in the research.

I also want to become an educator. Why? Because of what it represents to the community. I want to feel like I am contributing more than I am taking.

In the end, liking what I do will make me less prone to foolishly spending all of my money... it is already working; before I was a Uni student I made nearly 5 times what I make now, before I also spent every bit before my next paycheck. Why? I was miserable. So now I think I live as if I make more money, I am happier, and I fly kites on my days off.

 

[raam86]

I wish there was a "like" button. Thank you kyle. A good read.

 

[micromass]

Am I correct in assuming there's more depth to CS, physics and math than chemistry, life science and Earth science? What about economics, seems even if you become a top notch researcher in that field, the math seems real simple and shallow.

And then there's philosophy - is it even worth considering? Seems like a useless, dead field to me. The only still thriving is philosophy of language. But is linguistics even worth considering? Its kinda different in that it doesn't depend as much as on math as other fields, but geez, even Chomsky is highly regarded amongst linguists. =/ Besides it seems young and simple/uncomplicated/easy compared to other fields.

Well, a lot depends on what you call "deep". If you understand "deep" as "mathematically deep", then yes, only math, physics and CSare the only deep fields. However, I give another meaning to deep, and in my opinion, all science fields can go really far, it simply depends on how much you want to do in it.

Fine, the math can be ridiculously easy in economics, but that doesn't mean that you can't conduct deep research in economics...

Does this mean immunology, neuroscience and the like are horrible fields where you must spend tons of time reading and citing other people's work like crazy? Personally I would rather be gaining new insight by my self and solving problems than reading tons of papers. I want to quickly start doing what I want to do and perform my job impressively and efficiently. From the looks of it, CS and math seems ideal, but there might be sides of the issue which I overlook.

Make no mistake about it, in math research, you will also need to read a lot of papers and you'll need to cite a lot too. Perhaps it's worse in other fields, I don't know. But don't think you won't read papers in research, you'll do that in any field.

Anything else you can fill me in on, like how long it takes to be proficient enough to do research in different fields, how much co-op it requires and the chances of ending up mediocre?

It takes a lot of time to be good in any field. It depends on the field really.
The chance of being mediocre are pretty high. But it all depends on you. You'll want to do research on something that interests you, and you'll have to work quite a bit.

Finally, I want to spend as much time researching as possible, I prefer to avoid teaching, bureaucracy and the like. How do I prepare my self the best to avoid trivial nonsense? Thanks for any help you may offer me.

Now, you will have to deal with nonsense anyway, so you better use it well. Teaching is a good opportunity to gain knowledge. You'll actually learn quite a lot from teaching elementary stuff. And you also learn to explain ideas in a concise and good way, which is something you'll really need...

 

[Kyle Stanley]

I wish there was a "like" button. Thank you kyle. A good read.

:-) Thanks!

 

[Sankaku]

Am I correct in assuming there's more depth to CS, physics and math than chemistry, life science and Earth science?

If the life, Earth and chemical sciences weren't deep, all the questions would have been answered by now. Have they?

As micromass said, you need to define what you mean by "deep."

 

[weld]

The level of math is of course higher in math than anywhere else, and the uppermost part of theoretical physics has some pretty hard math too. Can chemistry really be called comparable in math difficulty? Of course, I might be wrong, but I've rarely seen people point out actual examples and concepts which require a different type of skill (And what this skill entails, most of all) other than math. some say physics require more visualization, but how big a part is this of most physicists research? How much is it used in one subfield compared compared to another? Is "visualization" useless in for example particle physics while greatly useful and hard to master in astrophysics? Etc. What about, say geology? Does that require visualization, or at least have some other type of skill to make up for the lack of mathematical challenge?

 

[cgk]

This question is pointless, and you should know it. Math is no different from any other field. Most proofs consist of applying the same 20 tricks again and again, and in practice it's 80% grunt work, just like in any other field. And of course in math you'll spend just as much time reading and citing works of others as in "horrible" fields such as neuroscience, as you call them, because that is how you learn those 20 tricks.

You seem to disregard applied fields of science and work of other people. I would recomment you to get rid of that attitude. If you want to be deeply impressed by deep science, then go to your favorite university library and pick up a modern textbook on social psychology. You'll learn a lot about how extremely clever experiments can reveal how the world around us really works, and how it looks when the scientific method is taken seriously.

The question you should ask yourself is not whether a field is deep, but whether it is useful and whether your skill profile will enable you to contribute to the field.

 

[Sankaku]

The level of math is of course higher...

OK, absent you actually defining 'deep,' I am going to infer that you mean deep to be equivalent to the level of mathematics required. The problem, then, is that you have to define what 'level of math' means. Physics (and applied mathematics in general) uses some highly complex mathematical concepts. However, is that 'deep' to you if it is different than 'pure' math? Go bug twofish-quant about what he does on Wall Street and see if finance meets your definition of 'deep.' Mathematical ecology has plenty of complex modeling to fill your boots.

Not speaking from experience, but I imagine that the people who do quantum chemistry or model earthquake propagation have plenty to qualify as 'deep.'

 

[turbo]

Not speaking from experience, but I imagine that the people who do quantum chemistry or model earthquake propagation have plenty to qualify as 'deep.'

+1 There are lots of fields that require diligence and precision model-making, including studying semi-chaotic systems (want to forecast the weather, or predict changes in ocean currents?).

One cannot set up an arbitrary scale and start pigeonholing scientific fields in order of complexity. Complexity (depth) is always available in about any scientific field - you just have to get out to the forefront and tackle the seemingly intractable problems that lurk everywhere.

 

[twofish-quant]

Physics (and applied mathematics in general) uses some highly complex mathematical concepts. However, is that 'deep' to you if it is different than 'pure' math? Go bug twofish-quant about what he does on Wall Street and see if finance meets your definition of 'deep.' Mathematical ecology has plenty of complex modeling to fill your boots.

Also I question whether "mathematically complex==deep"

In my field, the "deeper the idea" the more simple the math. One example of something that is both deep and simple is special relativity.

One particularly annoying thing I find about economists is that they suffer from physics envy and end up randomly putting in equations that are totally unnecessary to the point that they are making. What is often the situation in economics, is that the thing you are trying to study is "too complex to be described by math."

 

[twofish-quant]

Am I correct in assuming there's more depth to CS, physics and math than chemistry, life science and Earth science?

No. It's not.

What about economics, seems even if you become a top notch researcher in that field, the math seems real simple and shallow.

I've found the opposite. Most economics papers that I've seen use too much math. Also economics suffers from an extremely dysfunctional publication system and the politics of economic academia is a hundred times as bad as physics academia.

Economists suffer from severe physics envy.

And then there's philosophy - is it even worth considering? Seems like a useless, dead field to me.

It's not. Tell me, why do you get up in the morning? Why do you think that fields with complex math are "better" than those that don't. These are philosophical question, and even if philosophy is annoying because you don't get any answers, you at least get to figure out what the questions are.

Also philosophy is useful for answering the question "so who brainwashed me?" For example, you think that things with complex math are deeper? What do you mean by deeper?

If you do some digging, Plato will come up.

Furthermore, if one wants to become a scientist, how's the job market for research positions in NA?

Awful. But speaking of philosophy...

I've figured out that Plato is the guy that came up with the idea that "math is deeper and deeper is good." One thing that I haven't totally figured out is where the "philosophy of careers" come from. I've found that physics majors have some pretty fundamental ideas on "careers," but I haven't figured out who came up with those ideas. Why do people think that a job as a research professor is "better" than being a truck driver?

The closest thing I've been able to figure out is the idea of "reproduction theory" which views social systems as an organism that reproduces. You get your ideas on what is "good" from your teachers and parents who get their ideas from their teachers and parents, and all of this is influenced by the general socio-economic system. That's fine, but I want *names*. The two big names that I could come up with is William Graham Sumner and Herbert Spencer, but they are late 19th century. Also, I think Ayn Rand has an important role in all of this.

You might think of philosophy as useless, but it becomes useful when the philosophical structure of your life falls apart. Suppose some tells you that you have totally no hope of being a research professor, and that the only job available is truck driving? Now what?

Ayn Rand is particularly important because a lot of physics geeks end up imagining themselves heroes of Atlas Shrugs.

And what about those other fields in terms of job prospects (Econ, linguistics, chem, genetics, Earth science, etc)? Good, bad, cutthroat competition, stressful, impossible to get a job, horror stories abound, etc? Basically if you got knowledge on this, any kind of knowledge, throw it out.

Why does it matter? (I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking you to tell me why it matters to you.)

Also, I hate to tell you this, but the answer to a lot of these questions is "no one knows." I can tell you what the job market was like in 2010. What things are going to be like in 2020 is hard, maybe impossible to figure out.

Finally, I want to spend as much time researching as possible, I prefer to avoid teaching, bureaucracy and the like. How do I prepare my self the best to avoid trivial nonsense? Thanks for any help you may offer me.

I see Plato talking again. You really should read Plato's Republic. Also read Ayn Rand. Rand is a must read. Personally, I think it's total non-sense, but it's important to read non-sense.

The problem is that teaching and bureaucracy isn't "trivial nonsense." I'd argue that knowing how to teach and knowing how to deal with politics and bureaucracy are core skills for successful researchers. Plato disagrees with me, and so does Rand.

 

[weld]

I see Plato talking again. You really should read Plato's Republic. Also read Ayn Rand. Rand is a must read. Personally, I think it's total non-sense, but it's important to read non-sense.

Actually, I have read quite a bit about philosophers like Plato, Kant, Hegel and the like. Never heard about Sumner though. Anyways, the real reason I ask is because I prefer a form of economical precaution. I know I can find something good in every field if I really try, so I might as well pick the one with little BS/low probable chance of running into BS (BS = politics, drudgery, bureaucracy, etc). It's not a requirement that a field has the absolute lowest amount of BS, thus I'm not going to go with just because it has the fewest cites on that statistic I provided, but I'm highly likely to chose a field which is in the lower half of cites. Thus I'm not deciding on anything certain at this point, this has more to do with deduction, that is the probability of running into BS in one field compared to another.

I've found the opposite. Most economics papers that I've seen use too much math. Also economics suffers from an extremely dysfunctional publication system and the politics of economic academia is a hundred times as bad as physics academia.

Economists suffer from severe physics envy.

One particularly annoying thing I find about economists is that they suffer from physics envy and end up randomly putting in equations that are totally unnecessary to the point that they are making. What is often the situation in economics, is that the thing you are trying to study is "too complex to be described by math."

This is very interesting. If possible, can you provide a similar account of other fields as well, or at least tell some of what you've heard from peers? This is also the kind of thing I look for when deciding on field.

 

[jspenuk]

The poster's question is meaningless.

A psychologist once asked an audience during a lecture: What do you think is better tool: a hammer or a screwdriver. Roughly half of the people in the audience raised their hands in support of the "hammer as the better tool". Then the other half of the audience raised their hands, in support of the screwdriver. And then there was an awkward silence, when people started to realize: better for what?

Another useful analogy is the question of a "higher state of consciousness". Some people say that meditation is a "higher" state of consciousness, as it allows for a better insight into the way one's mind works. But there are situations where one must focus their full attention on external environment (e.g. when you are walking down the street and that truck is bearing down on you!). You'd better be in your ordinary state of consciousness then!

Therefore, asking questions like "what is a better/deeper/higher... whatnot" may not be very helpful.

 

[twofish-quant]

I know I can find something good in every field if I really try, so I might as well pick the one with little BS/low probable chance of running into BS (BS = politics, drudgery, bureaucracy, etc). It's not a requirement that a field has the absolute lowest amount of BS,

If you want to minimize BS, you have to define BS, and defining BS is a political and philosophical question.

Also, one thing that makes me a little different is that I look for fields with large amounts of nonsense. If everything was running smoothly, why do you need me around?

This is very interesting. If possible, can you provide a similar account of other fields as well, or at least tell some of what you've heard from peers? This is also the kind of thing I look for when deciding on field.

The nice thing about philosophy is that even when you don't get many answers, you end up asking interesting questions. One question that you should ask yourself is "why are you dividing knowledge into fields?" It's an important question, because once you create "university departments" you are already asking for a lot of bureaucracy and politics.

Also, why do you need to "decide on a field?" I ask this because one of the things that has helped me a lot is to totally refuse to "decide on a field".

 

[twofish-quant]

The poster's question is meaningless.

Depends on your theory of meaning.

Another useful analogy is the question of a "higher state of consciousness". Some people say that meditation is a "higher" state of consciousness, as it allows for a better insight into the way one's mind works. But there are situations where one must focus their full attention on external environment (e.g. when you are walking down the street and that truck is bearing down on you!). You'd better be in your ordinary state of consciousness then!

Maybe not. One thing that you have to realize is that mediation comes from Zen Buddhism, and one of the ideas behind Buddhism is that if you get hit by a truck because you were thinking about something, that's fate which you shouldn't try to avoid. If it wasn't your fate to get hit by a trunk, you would have avoided it, but perhaps it is important for the universe that you get hit by the truck at that moment.

 

[Sankaku]

One thing that you have to realize is that mediation comes from Zen Buddhism, and one of the ideas behind Buddhism is that if you get hit by a truck because you were thinking about something, that's fate which you shouldn't try to avoid. If it wasn't your fate to get hit by a trunk, you would have avoided it, but perhaps it is important for the universe that you get hit by the truck at that moment.

Just a little off-topic clarification. Zen did not invent meditation (go read the Vedas or some Zhuangzi). Zen also is not big on this 'fate' thing you seem to be describing...

Besides, your scenario seems a little deterministic for any physicist with much sense, no?

 

[weld]

Of course I need to decide a field. I don't doubt that every field can be interesting if one look hard enough. However, that line of thinking makes it completely impossible to decide. And I do want to decide of course; I could see my self with a future in science and thus what such a future may entail deserves my thourough investigation. And one needs to specialize if one is to be productive. While you may claim such line of thinking the same as "brainwashing", not everyone agrees to that. Being productive can be qutie satisfying.

I could simply go on gut instinct, but I don't really have a gut instinct at this point. Even if I did, I would definitely scutinize it as instinct can't always be trusted. And regardless of the strength of own personal will, there's a big world out there, with lots of wolves. I feel more comfortable, knowing what's going on and what I'm getting into. Jumping into the game without knowing its rules is suicide.

Thus I need as much information as possible to create an impression of each science. You may think some of the questions meaningless, and its possible you're right. In that case, don't bother with it. I'm still interested in what people here have to say regarding the other things I mentioned. There are small niches and caches of information spread around the internet. Small stories, nudgets of information, statistics, obscure articles and websites spread around the internet. If you have any such things, I would be happy to see it here.

 

[elkement]

I think this is a very important requirement - which will be hard to meet:

Finally, I want to spend as much time researching as possible, I prefer to avoid teaching, bureaucracy and the like. How do I prepare my self the best to avoid trivial nonsense? Thanks for any help you may offer me.

In my opinion a requirement like this puts a constraint on the type of organization and type of job, not so much on the specific field.

If you want to avoid bureaucracy you probably need to avoid governmental organizations and large corporations. There still might be sheltered islands where pure specialists can thrive without being bothered by politics and bureaucracy, but I feel these are getting smaller and smaller. I can fully relate to your statement as I spent some time both in gov. organizations and in large corporations.

One conclusion is that a smaller and more flexible company might provide a better fit. However you would need a more entrepreneural spirit and you need to be prepared to work in different roles. You will rather work on something which is 'more trivial', but which is 'really needed in the short run'.
I know that I am over-simplifying of course, but I had taken some decisions in my career that had been based on somewhat similar considerations.

Trying to respond to your question - but note that this is based on my personal bias: I would select a field that allows you to start your own business while keeping risks reasonably low (thus which does not require you to file a bunch of patents and build manufacturing facilities), e.g. computer science, physics or engineering (In my country an experimental physicist can acquire a license as a Professional Engineer). I also know mathematicians that work as statistics consultants.

 

[weld]

Well, fair enough then. I'll ask something else: Which bachelor degree allows one to reach the highest level of abstraction? I want challenge, and lots of it.

 

[micromass]

Well, fair enough then. I'll ask something else: Which bachelor degree allows one to reach the highest level of abstraction? I want challenge, and lots of it.

If you want abstraction, then you need mathematics or mathematical physics. You'll have more abstraction then you'll ever want!

 

[raam86]

Abstraction!=deep.

Medicine is not abstract at all but is a deep and thriving research field.

 

[weld]

In addition to my last question, when it comes to research, what sciences would be more "clean" and orderly? Economics is an example of an unnorderly science. People can't seem to agree on anything there, not on how to conduct research, how to interpret findings, etc etc. Thus I also ask, which sciences are the least clean and orderly?

Also, which sciences have the most political bickering? By that I mean nepotism, faking research/plagiarism, people following the herd on certain theories, people fearing to come up with alternate theories due to potential backlash from others, etc.

 

[chiro]

Well, fair enough then. I'll ask something else: Which bachelor degree allows one to reach the highest level of abstraction? I want challenge, and lots of it.

All fields have their level of abstraction, but I think if you want to learn something that applies to almost anything math would be it. The upper levels of math demonstrate the pinnacle of "abstractness" that we humans have come up with so far.

One thing I should point out for you though is that there is a difference between some kinds of "applied math" and "applied" math. I'll explain:

The kinds of assumptions made in "applied math" are usually very limited. They are never really meant to be complete, but usually this kind of research is done in fields that are new, and you need to start with something and learn from it to refine it and make it more complex.

Then there are the "applied" math. Things like engineering and real world applications need to have models that are as close to the real world as possible and for this you can't just the assumptions that you could in the "applied math" type scenario. If you're building an aeroplane you need to use complex models and simulations that are as correct as you can make it for obvious reasons.

So given this there is definitely a lot of work out there that will definitely be challenging, yet doesn't go as abstract as it can get.

In fact coming up with the right assumptions for real life problems is very very hard. I'm sure two-fish could maybe give his view on this statement, and maybe any engineers might want to chime in as well.

In fact you might be interested that there is a million dollar prize for solving a problem relating to modelling fluid flow, and if you solved that you would definitely be helping a lot of people (including yourself with a nice million buckazoids).

 

[weld]

Now first off I would like to ask to whoever put those tags: was that meant sarcastically?

Secondly I'll ask a question along the same line as the one about abstractness: What field of science would overall be the most complex, and which ten (If you can list that many) subfield in math, physics and CS would be the most complex in this day and age? If any of this is looking to or has historically changed fast, then I would be happy if you could include a bit about that in your post as well. If you can provide list of the most complex subfields in sciences other than CS, physics and math then that would be good as well. Even better if you can compare different subfields, even across wholly different fields. :)

Another question along those very same lines: Which sciences are more affected by epistemological problems. Economics seems like one, and I have a hard time taking it seriously. Seems like a bandwagon for predator capitalists to justify their moral wrongdoings. =/ I've heard neuroscience as well. Thoughts?

And yet another one of those questions. Which sciences are cutthroat? As stated in an earlier post, I got the impression that life sciences overall are much worse with plagiarism and backstabbing.Now for another question. Experimental or theoretical physics? I've read that a generation of string theorists are retiring, without any of their theories ever having been tested by experimentalists. Seems pretty horrible, and that's a definite notch-down for me.

On the other hand, what type of problems can an experimentalist hope to solve? Don't they just run experiments and tinker with machines to test the theories of theorists?

Second question, considering string theorists are retiring without testing their stuff, does that make for a huge red flag for high energy and other very abstract elitist physics stuff? Sounds like it would be better to do more manageable-scale problems so that whatever theories one comes up with (I assume the research in question is a theorist here) can actually be confirmed right or wrong within a realistic timeframe.

Really, what kept those string theorists who are now retiring going for so many years anyways? Are they so dead sure of their own intuitions that they can just keep working, even when their theories may be totally wrong? It just sounds bad really. With all this made up junk, even though yeah sure making patterns and theories up can be fun as way of intellectual wanking, one still can't really know if one is actually reaching new levels of insight or not. It feels bad, knowing I might be just deluding my self. You may tell me to just keep to my fantasies exclusively - but no. I think happiness comes from both the material and mental realm. Also, of course, the fact that made-up useless **** won't be useful or sustainable in the long run, not a problem if you can keep the scam going for long enough to retire, but that risk's not worth it imo.