Benn

I realize I've been a bit frivolous in asking questions here. Lots of it is kinda vague, but I have a last batch of questions that could be considered general and vague. 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. I'm also interested in which field have a solid amount of both complexity and abstractness, and which have little of neither. How are things looking to change in the future, will any fields overtake others while other are left in the dust? Historical facts and views are also interesting for perspective. 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, a more specific one. 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. Also, does any other science field have scandals of such scale as the one I listed above?

Pure mathematics in my opinion. Then things like mathematical and theoretical physics. Interesting. So how does theoretical CS, chemistry, geoscience and material sci compare to these in terms of challenge and abstraction?

then you haven't researched them thoroughly enough. Well, this is a part of my research. The more stories, interesting little tibits, statistics, opinions, etc people share about these fields, the better. I'll also point out that I won't bother learning too much about each and every field by studying directly, my time is precious and I'm not gonna spend forever deciding. That's why I'm looking forward, looking to what awaits me at the end of the tunnel in terms of politics, etc. Thus I have a few questions for those who may answer them: Which bachelor degree allows one to reach the highest level of abstraction? I want challenge, and lots of it. 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.

bumpitybumpbump!

http://www.the-scien...s/list/279.page http://archive.scien...feb99_page2.htm http://www.timeshigh...torycode=415643 http://archive.scien...feb99_page1.htm Look at the content of these 4 links. Especially the third link is shocking. In molecular biology, biochem and the like one cites a lot. Does this mean excessive time is spent just reading other people's research? I'm an aspiring scientist, and I want to spend as much time possible solving my own research, and not just making preparations for solving my own by reading other's works. I find that way the best to become a successful scientist. I also would like to avoid to the largest degree possible, teaching and paperwork and other mundane stuff. Anyone know how I can go about to avoid such things? Mathematics and comp sci would be the best for me, if I'm interpreting the meaning of the data correctly. Also, doesn't comp sci, mathematics and theoretical phys have way more interesting and intensive stuff than chem, bio sciences and geo sciences? The math in the three later fields seem easy, just basic undergrad level petty much. Also, is econ worth considering? Again it seems like the math and challenge is lacking. Can a field even be called challenging if the math's simple? People say econ requires some other skill like psychology, but is this actually hard? And then there's philosophy. Seems like a useless, dead field to me. The only still thriving is philosophy of language. Linguistics is different as it doesn't depend as much as on math as other fields, but still has its own rigourous system. But can a field really be impressive if people like Noam C. are highly regarded in it? Even with the increasing rigour in linguistics, isn't it too young and simple compared to fields like phys and mathematics? Nother thing I would like to know more about is job prospects. I hear dubious sayings about physics full, none becoming research mathematicians, CS is full of unexplored possibilities, etc - any shred truth to such claims? How the job prospects in those other fields, econ, linguistics, geo science, bio sciences. Any type of info you can give on this, whether its statistics, degree of co-op required with other scientists, chance of ending up mediocre or horror stories - fill me in. The field I got the worst impression of is medical science. Seems like competition is though with its standout plagiarism and it's almost law-of-the-jungle (In a deceptive way of course). Thanks in advance.