News How hard is it to choose a single science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Grands
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hard Science
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges and implications of specializing in a single field of science versus being a polymath, as exemplified by historical figures like Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo. Participants express concerns that focusing solely on one discipline may limit a scientist's potential and curiosity, especially given the vastness of knowledge in each field. While some argue that specialization is necessary due to the increasing complexity and volume of scientific information, others advocate for a broader educational approach that includes multiple disciplines, suggesting that interdisciplinary knowledge can enhance understanding and innovation. The conversation also touches on the educational requirements in science programs, which often necessitate coursework in related fields, indicating that a degree of interdisciplinary study is already embedded in scientific education. Ultimately, the debate highlights the balance between depth and breadth in scientific study and the evolving nature of research that increasingly intersects various scientific domains.
Grands
Messages
235
Reaction score
48
Hi guys.
My question is about science.
If scientists, or people that want to became scientists, have to choose and only one field of science, like physics, chemistry, biology, math, etc...there isn't the risk of limitate themselves?
I mean, you know, every science field is very wide, and time is never enough, but we know that all the good scientist are curious of the nature, so it is good for them to be a specialist in a single field?

In the past, smart people like Leonardo da Vinci ( who was also a great engineer and an artist) and Galileo, were involved in many fields, while today we then to focalize only on one field, this can't be a limitation?
I know that this is happening because today every field is very wide and every day new thing are discovered, but I still think that is not good to choose an only subject to study.

Maybe this is because in the past people didn't care about money or board, or about that they have to buy a house and have a family, so they just do that.
 
  • Like
Likes narcissus_papyra
Physics news on Phys.org
My father is a physicists.
When I asked him what he studied at uni he said: "All of math and all of physics, all of them". It really depends on the fields you like to choose: if you want to be a chemist, for example, it is good to study math, physics and chemistry.

Try to limit down your interests but not your studies. If you like biology then going with both chemistry and biology is not a bad idea.

Grands said:
In the past, smart people like Leonardo da Vinci ( who was also a great engineer and an artist) and Galileo, were involved in many fields, while today we then to focalize only on one field, this can't be a limitation?

We need to focus on a particular field, because all the basics have already been discovered and it is necessary to go in depth for more.

Grands said:
every day new thing are discovered

Not really.

Grands said:
but I still think that is not good to choose an only subject to study.

Definitely
Not only it helps with your focus area, it also expands your knowledge and brain capabilities. Always good to learn different things maybe also have different subjects to study. If you like geography and physics then go with both. Knowing many things from a broad spectrum of subjects never does any harm.
 
  • Like
Likes narcissus_papyra
ISamson said:
Try to limit down your interests but not your studies. If you like biology then going with both chemistry and biology is not a bad idea.
What a general question, it was not about me, or maybe not only about me.
 
Grands said:
What a general question, it was not about me, or maybe not only about me.

I'm sorry, what are you trying to say here?
 
ISamson said:
I'm sorry, what are you trying to say here?
It was a general question, about the scientists of our day have to join a single field of science, compared to the scientists of the past.
 
Grands said:
It was a general question, about the scientists of our day have to join a single field of science, compared to the scientists of the past.
That is very narrow-minded thinking, and too self-limiting.

Attend university for undergraduate degree in Physics - the program WILL require other sciences courses beside just those of Physics.

Attend a university for undergraduate degree in Biology - the program WILL require science courses other than just Biology.
 
symbolipoint said:
Attend a university for undergraduate degree in Biology - the program WILL require science courses other than just Biology.
Yes, but it's only an exam, like basic math, that is simili or easier that the ones of the best high schools.
 
Grands said:
It was a general question, about the scientists of our day have to join a single field of science, compared to the scientists of the past.

That is a pointless comparison. It is sometimes said that von Humboldt was the last polymath but even he had to spent a LOT of time just keeping up with the latest developments; the only reason he -allegedly- was able to do so is because he died (1860?)before the advent of modern science.
In order to be able to create something new you need to understand what has already been done. By now there is so much information out there that not only do you have to choose a particular science, but also (most likely) a sub-field of a sub-field to work in. Even keeping up with the most recent literature in a particular area takes a LOT of time and the number of scientific papers being published every day keeps increasing. I could easily spend 100% of my time reading papers that could -potentially- be relevant to my work so -like everyone else- I have to prioritize.

Note. however, that these days many research fields include areas that traditionally would have been considered different sciences. On my (messy) desk I currently have papers on physics(superconducting quantum circuits, topological insulators etc), chemistry (surface chemistry), electron spin resonance, microwave engineering and nanomagnetism; all related to projects I am currently working on. This would be true for pretty much every working scientist.
 
  • Like
Likes member 563992 and Grands
Grands said:
Yes, but it's only an exam, like basic math, that is simili or easier that the ones of the best high schools.
Complete nonsense everywhere in the world.
 
  • #10
symbolipoint said:
Complete nonsense everywhere in the world.
I was speaking the level of math in the biology degree.
 
  • #11
Grands said:
Yes, but it's only an exam, like basic math, that is simili or easier that the ones of the best high schools.
symbolipoint said:
Complete nonsense everywhere in the world.
Grands said:
I was speaking the level of math in the biology degree.
You were speaking about fields of Sciences.
 
  • #12
Math is not a science ?
 
  • Like
Likes ISamson
  • #13
Grands said:
Math is not a science ?

I think it is.
 
  • Like
Likes Grands
  • #14
ISamson said:
I think it is.
It was a rhetorical question.
 
  • #16
Grands said:
Math is not a science ?
ISamson said:
I think it is.
Grands said:
It was a rhetorical question.
ISamson said:
Actually, I don't think it is.
It help with science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics :smile:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics
Grands said:
I was speaking the level of math in the biology degree.
symbolipoint said:
You were speaking about fields of Sciences.
Explain now why this topic was started as How hard is to choose a single science? Explain how post #1 discussing choices of sciences is really Mathematics but not science?
 
  • #17
To answer the OP, I think you must know yourself well enough to know what you want to go on with. Which subjects do you like? Any hobbies? Topics?
(@Grands).
 
  • #18
An illustrated explanation: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

Also relevant:
phd081508s.gif

http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1056
 

Attachments

  • phd081508s.gif
    phd081508s.gif
    14 KB · Views: 663
  • #19
Do you mean that more you discover more you understand that you know very few things?
 
  • #20
the-illustrated-guide-to-a-phd1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • the-illustrated-guide-to-a-phd1.jpg
    the-illustrated-guide-to-a-phd1.jpg
    51.3 KB · Views: 628
  • #21
Grands said:
Do you mean that more you discover more you understand that you know very few things?
If donpacino's post #20 does not convey the meaning, then nothing will.
 
  • #22
I don't understand the penultimate picture.
 

Similar threads

To supercharge science, first experiment with how it is funded
Replies
7
Views
2K
Is it possible to make science as marketable as Engineering?
Replies
42
Views
5K
How can some scientists deal with many different subjects?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
Replies
14
Views
3K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
Replies
12
Views
3K
Nature: How many papers really end up without a single citation
Replies
1
Views
1K
Why do so many people hate science?
Replies
28
Views
11K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
3K
Which disciplines would you call Hard Sciences vs. Soft Sciences ?
2
Replies
65
Views
46K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top