Talk:Physical science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physical science is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Physical science was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on July 24, 2005. For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

this page needs to be reconciled with natural science and biological science --zandperl 17:35, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

It's not the same as physics, you know. All those subclasses shouldn't be mentioned here. They're way too high level. And certainly civil and electrical engineering shouldn't because it is applied science. What should: Physics, Chemistry (except biochemistry), Geography (except social geography), Geology (except paleontology). matter and energy. Phlebas 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content

The information on physics copies directly from the physics' page. I am not inclined to leave it as a mere copy of that page. Do we need something on "physics" on this page? Steven McCrary 16:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I just did the same with a few other pages. I'm just trying to fill it out. Whatever you want to do, I probably won't argue, but do you have any suggestions for filling out this page? Maurreen (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now, I like the breakdown, just not a verbatim copy from the other pages. How would a topical outline work here? Also, it seems we need external Internet links. Steven McCrary 16:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the information around quite a bit and made several changes. Please feel free to make any suggestions or revisions? Steven McCrary 19:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I like what you've done. I don't know enough about the subject, or have enough energy, to be much help. But a few possibilities are one or a few primary scientists, laws, definitions or developments in each field.

Side note, I'm going to make the capitalization more consistent. Maurreen (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

thank-you Steven McCrary 02:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a little info on the periodic table. Maurreen (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Also possibly a little on how the fields are applied, a more-concrete representation. Maurreen (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe we should be careful with our additions. Explaination of all of these ideas can be found on other pages. I suggest that the pages need Wikified-linked to other pages. I like the idea of prominent scientists. But, I believe laws, definitions, and developments should be added with care or this article could repeat a great deal of information already (and more appropriately) found on other pages. Steven McCrary 02:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer science

Hi all. I would like to have your point of view on wether computer science seen as the study of computations is a physical science. Regards, --Powo 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the view that computer science is, as is maths and stats etc... Although it would seem to seem that different peoples views on this differ as to the definition. Such as the editor(s) of this current version. Mathmo 13:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Computer Science (CS) is like maths, under some aspects. However, contrary to maths, it has a strong connection to the physical world! CS can be seen as the study of computations, which is the evolution over time of a physical system (a computer). It can also be seen as the study of Information, which is a concept from physics, similar to Energy. Seing CS from those points of view seems to make CS as a physical science. I personally tend to see CS as something in the intersection of physics, mathematics and engineering. Because of this, it challenges the usual boundaries decided by science philosophers (math is a not a science/physics is a science), because CS is in the middle! I would like to see this article take that into account. IMHO, many people do not understand that CS is a science. They see CS as technology (and the word CS also has this meaning, I suppose). This is clearly a misunderstanding of the deepness of the discipline. CS is more than that, which is aknowledged by saying that CS is like mathematics.However I can not agree with the decision of putting CS as mathematics, because of its very strong link to the physical world (asexplained above), and also, from the point of view of the scientific practise, CS differs a lot from mathematics since there is a lot of the empirical and experimental approach (although most of the experiments are of the In silico type, but this is not exclusive to CS: biology, physics, etc... make use of in silico experiments a lot too). Regards, Powo

[edit] Restored removed material

The content reduction/replacement performed October 11, 2006 by Jalaldn (talk • contribs) offered up what looks to be a sincere attempt at content improvement, so I left most of it in. However, the blanking that occurred at the same time looked inappropriate so I have copy-pasted it back to restore it. I know this plays minor havoc with the history. Worse, it is an ugly article now as a result. Someone else more involved with this article might be wise to revert back to the last October 4 version and then either 1) work the Jalaldn contribution into the structure, as I attempted or 2) post it here on the talk page for consideration or 3)delete. -- Paleorthid 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately all of Jalaldn's "contribution" was copied from encyclopedia Britannica. I've reverted them. In fact I essentially had to revert the article back to the version of 00:06, September 6, 2006 by SineWave, and adding the only two good edits since then made by Transhumanist, on Sep 26. Paul August ☎ 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)