Where is the unified science?

[Proletar]

If you take a look at some of the scientists of the 1800s, you will find that they are not "biochemists", "biologists", "psychologists, "psychotherapists" or "sociologists", but mostly just scientists.

Many like the idea of specified sciences, but consider that any question asked about the human condition will be answered differently by each one. Science has been branching out for the past 100 years, and sure, lots of stuff have been gained, but when will we see a process where they start intertwining properly?

And don't give me that bullshit that it already is. Sure, to some extent, but psychologists and psychoterapists rarely interact in the treatment of patients today for example.

 

[Duxwing]

If you take a look at some of the scientists of the 1800s, you will find that they are not "biochemists", "biologists", "psychologists, "psychotherapists" or "sociologists", but mostly just scientists.

Many like the idea of specified sciences, but consider that any question asked about the human condition will be answered differently by each one. Science has been branching out for the past 100 years, and sure, lots of stuff have been gained, but when will we see a process where they start intertwining properly?

And don't give me that bullshit that it already is. Sure, to some extent, but psychologists and psychoterapists rarely interact in the treatment of patients today for example.

I agree, parents need treatment: child abuse, neglect, and mistreatment is rampant even among high-income, intellectual cohorts, such as those encountered in my AP Chemistry class.

-Duxwing

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Do you mean something like mechatronics?

[bimgx=300]http://i.imgur.com/pqdbo.png[/bimgx]


Otherwise my response is that science is too broad nowadays.

 

[Proletar]

I believe in the dialectic principle, and that it's appliable to many things. If you for example view a plant, you would see that it first branches out, and then starts to evolve leafs, and then branches out, and then evolve leafs, and so on. It happens in sudden switches, just like evolution. (Not like the older theory with the giraffes and their necks slowly reaching higher branches of leafs.) Science has been on an outreach for quite a long time now, and I think it's time for it to synthetize. What would for example happen if we combined the gained research of biochemics with the treatments developed by psychologists? It's all a study of the human mind anyways, so I think it's time to start looking for some common ground for all the practices.

Yes ESC, that graph is a good example of what I'm looking for. And what does it really mean if we've branched out too much for combined theorists to evolve?

 

[Cognisant]

Combined theorists evolve naturally as a result of branching out.

In the 1800s there wasn't nearly as much science going on as there is today, back then being as well educated as we take for granted now made you a scientist, whereas these days people need a lot more education just to catch up with a single field, which I guess is slowing things down, we really are at a point where there simply isn't enough time in an entire human lifetime to learn everything that's currently known.

 

[Architect]

The problem is that these fields have become so big that nobody can become an expert in more than a small subset of one field. The fragmentation is more than what you say, in Physics we have theoreticians and experimentalists, solid state, high energy/particle, gravitational, astro, nuclear, etc. There is absolutely no way one person could be an expert in an entire field (Physics), never mind more than one (Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc).

Science was barely science in the 1800's.

 

[PhoenixRising]

The different branches of science are definitely too divided. Scientists are all studying the same thing, the reality of this universe. To be truly efficient, it would take every branch of science having the same outlook on how things work, and collaborating between themselves to come to an overall answer. There tends to be a very unfounded disrespect between professionals in different sciences. For example, to many in the "hard" sciences, psychology isn't even considered a science. It seems like the division is based mostly on human bias and subjective opinion rather than concrete discrepancies between objective results.

There is actually a movement in physics and biology to create a more cohesive worldview in these sciences. It is not supported by some members of the scientific community, but there are more and more papers and books being written that include theories from physics intertwined with objective data from topics in biology (ex. genetic mutations and the uncertainty principle). Psychology is also being integrated into this movement through neuroscience.

The new frontier of chaos theory, research into turbulent flow and initial condition dependence, etc., has changed the outlook of many fields of science. It is likely that new, complex ways of looking at natural phenomena, such as are found in chaos theory, will be what unites all fields of science into a cohesive worldview... eventually.

 

[Sorlaize]

>society
>smart/efficient organization

pick one


--

for me, I take everything in my stride / adapt my worldview

 

[Orson]

As some others before me have said, science is just too broad nowadays. There is too much to learn, and too little time.

In my opinion, the way it operates currently works perfectly. There are a small number of experts in particular fields, and if it so happens that a scientist from one field requires the assistance of a scientist from another field, I don't think that is really a problem.

I believe you'll find that scientists will have a good grasp on a lot of the concepts present in other fields, so that although they may not be 'qualified' per se, they would be adept at understanding certain principles and ideas if someone who was 'qualified' were to explain it to them.

There are already a lot of areas where fields overlap, for example astronomy and geology / planetary science. This is just one example. Neither side suffers from not knowing as much about the other. If anything, they compliment each other.

If I were a project manager of any kind, I would much prefer to hire three men or women who are experts in an individual field, than one man or woman who was simply adept in three separate fields.

 

[Orson]

I'd just like to add for the benefit of the OP, could you imagine if even an educational system as relatively simple as a primary school tried to combine the individual subject areas they teach their students in to one unified subject?

I understand it would be different than a unified scientific field, as science is all science where as schools teach English etc... However my point is that there would simply be no logical way (in my opinion) that you could combine fields that study vastly different concepts in to a single method of education and research.

Kind regards,

Orson.

 

[Lostwitheal]

Have you looked at how you get a PHD, for example? It's all about carving out your own specific little empire, and all most profs are interested in doing is expanding their specific little empire.

The system of academia is simply not geared towards this kind of goal.

 

[The Introvert]

when will we see a process where they start intertwining properly?

One could argue that we have already been through a period in which scientists grouped together across multiple fields and discussed topics (many of which involved systems theory). During the '70's, this was common practice in many institutes. Somewhere along the line, science became more departmentalized and we are now at the point where "every" area of science has its own niche and specific set of functions that they focus on.

I would argue, however, that we are starting to move back towards the '70's model again. Just speaking from a general standpoint, it seems to me as though people are realizing that communication between what are now separate areas of science can create a very rewarding (and at this point in time, unique) learning experience. Don't be surprised if you start seeing institutions that implement this method fairly soon.

In all; I see departmentalization as a gradient of sorts, and right now I believe we are at one end of the gradient (near complete separation of every conceivable scientific area) and moving towards the opposite end again. Theoretically speaking, the opposite end would be classification of all science into one over-arching group; a super-science (Terminator?), if you will. Interesting stuff, systems...

 

[ElvenVeil]

The problem is that these fields have become so big that nobody can become an expert in more than a small subset of one field. The fragmentation is more than what you say, in Physics we have theoreticians and experimentalists, solid state, high energy/particle, gravitational, astro, nuclear, etc. There is absolutely no way one person could be an expert in an entire field (Physics), never mind more than one (Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc).

Science was barely science in the 1800's.

This. It is simply not possible to have polymaths today, like you had in the old days.