# xkcd on purity of scientific fields **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 23, 2012, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678 "2012-04-23T10:51:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Indian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@Indian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indian)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/1 "2012-04-23T10:51:55Z")
[xkcd](http://xkcd.com/435/). Agree with the stated order? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/2 "2012-04-23T12:28:12Z")
I do not see much room for argument about the ordering, except for the fact that one could argue that mathematics is not an empirical science, and so does not belong on the same scale at all. One could argue as to whether “purity” is the right term to really capture what is behind the ordering, or whether or not it is true that the fields to the right are really superior in some way to those to the left, as the word “purity” seems to imply. “Abstract” might be a less loaded term, or, if you wanted to bias things the other way, something like “autistic” or “disconnected from human reality”. Although physicists and mathematicians like to believe otherwise, there are important senses in which what sociologists and psychologists do is both more intellectually challenging (the phenomena they deal with are much more complex, which, arguably, is why the fields have not advanced so fast) and more practically important. But as for the actual ordering, apart from the quibble about mathematics, I do not see much room for disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/3 "2012-04-23T12:34:29Z")
> [@](#): > > But as for the actual ordering, apart from the quibble about mathematics, I do not see much room for disagreement. You could even have an economist standing with the sociologist; economics is applied psychology. It all makes sense. The only thing wrong with it is the implication that there’s anything wrong with being on the left side. I’m happy the mathematicians can feel more pure, but math won’t build by house unless it’s applied to engineering, masonry, carpentry, and electrical work. Application is what turns science into stuff. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/4 "2012-04-23T13:16:18Z")
Disagree. Using the definition of science as generating falsifiable hypothesis, then only Biology, Chemistry and Physics are actually sciences at all. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/5 "2012-04-23T13:31:18Z")
Psychology and sociology are perfectly capable of producing falsifiable hypotheses. It’s just that people are more prone to ignore the falsification when it happens than they are with sciences that less directly impact ideologies/religions. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/6 "2012-04-23T13:49:25Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Disagree. Using the definition of science as generating falsifiable hypothesis, then only Biology, Chemistry and Physics are actually sciences at all. Note that the actual cartoon doesn’t use the word “science” at all. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/7 "2012-04-23T13:49:54Z")
It reminds me of the old saw I once heard. When you get to college, you find out that Psychology is really Biology, Biology is really Chemistry, Chemistry is really Physics, and Physics is really Math. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/8 "2012-04-23T14:36:09Z")
and any philosophy prof will tell you that math is just quantified philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/9 "2012-04-23T14:44:05Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > and any philosophy prof will tell you that math is just quantified philosophy. Then you get into the wrap around, because philosophy is created by the human mind. In other words, sociologists are only studying what happens when everyone’s individual philosophies are being applied to life. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/10 "2012-04-23T14:49:12Z")
Calling chemistry “applied physics” only works if actual people actually calculate out all chemical process using physics. It’s my understanding that such calculations can only be carried out “in theory”–hence the term “applied” misses the mark here. Similar reasoning applies on down the line. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/11 "2012-04-23T15:21:46Z")
There’s a good section in Godel, Escher, Bach that talks about “chunking.” It’s inconvenient to talk about chemistry in terms of the physics, so you move to a higher level of abstraction. One analogy the author used was a high level language being chunked machine code which is chunked circuits, which are chunked electric fields, etc. None are better, its just really useful to think of things on different levels depending on what your goals are. ---
**Author:** ![fiddlesticks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddlesticks/32/18129_2.png) [@fiddlesticks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiddlesticks)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/12 "2012-04-23T15:46:21Z")
Is the biologist holding the octopus a reference to something? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/13 "2012-04-23T16:01:56Z")
Biology without chemistry aint gonna happen. Kayaker (BS in biochem) ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/14 "2012-04-23T16:02:17Z")
It’s one of my favorite all time xkcd comics. The actual ordering itself says nothing about the importance or value of one field or another, but it does specifically imply that somehow because one field is an applied version of another that the field from which it is derived has an arrogance about it. So it’s a commentary on it as well. I more or less agree with the order, and I actually think it’s helpful in putting it all in perspective. I think the similar sort of ordering that **Snarky** provided illustrates why. That it’s important for someone who does high level code to have some sort of understanding of machine code and electrical engineering and all that, but we really need that level of abstraction or we’d never be able to get anything really useful done. It’s the same with those fields. We can ultimately break down biology to chemistry and chemistry to physics and all, but it’s really not a whole lot of use at it’s lowest, most pure level to answering a lot of questions. I do think the term applied works well though. Physics doesn’t work until we apply values and units to certain physical properties and certain mathematical functions to certain physical processes. Similarly with physics up to chemistry. The whole point is we don’t need to do those extra steps because that process is well understood enough in the same way that I could calculate an integral from scratch or manually solve a quadratic equation, or I could just use well understood rules to solve the integral quickly in my head or apply the quadratic equation. We understand that we’re basically taking that short cut, but if we keep recalculating it every time, we’ll never make higher-level progress. I do think as you get farther away from the purer fields, you start to get so abstract that it’s a lot more difficult to really come to hard meaningful conclusions precisely because they’re applications of applications of applications, which is why we can say with great certainty so many things in mathematics and to a somewhat lesser degree in physics, but often have trouble even defining real trends in psychology and sociology, but if we really tried to break those questions down to lower levels to get that level of certainty, we’d be so inundated with calculations we’d never be able to draw any sorts of conclusions at all. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/15 "2012-04-23T16:11:13Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > It’s one of my favorite all time xkcd comics. The actual ordering itself says nothing about the importance or value of one field or another That’s what the mouseover is for. ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/16 "2012-04-23T16:25:58Z")
> [@fiddlesticks](#): > > Is the biologist holding the octopus a reference to something? It’s a reference to PZ Myers [Pharyngula](http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula) a professor of Evo-Devo biology and the cuttlefish/squid’s fiercest champion. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/17 "2012-04-23T16:32:17Z")
Placing computer science on there would be fun. It’s basically stuck in a nether-world between “applied engineering” and “it’s basically math.” ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/18 "2012-04-23T16:54:45Z")
> [@fiddlesticks](#): > > Is the biologist holding the octopus a reference to something? [PZ Myers?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers) Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers (born March 9, 1957) is an American scientist and biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM) and the author of the Pharyngula science blog. He is currently an associate professor of biology at UMM, works with zebrafish in the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), and also **cultivates an interest in cephalopods**. He has published numerous research papers in Nature and other notable scientific journals. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/19 "2012-04-23T17:03:28Z")
Interestingly, the physics guy thinks he’s “on top” when in fact all the characters are standing on the same plane, as the mathematician could easily point out: ΔY = 0. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/20 "2012-04-23T17:04:18Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Biology without chemistry aint gonna happen. > > Kayaker (BS in biochem) Not many decades back biology got on very well without chemistry. Darwin didn’t need no stinkin’ chemistry. Actually plenty of biologists don’t need any significant chemistry, even today. Unless you are just saying that living things are made of chemicals, like, um, non-living things. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678.md?page=2)