I'm looking for ones that don't depend on others for a full understanding, ex. mathematics, physics, mechanics...
Ones that wouldn't be included in this list are things like chemistry and biology. To fully understand chemistry, you need knowledge of physics, to fully understand biology, you need to understand chemistry.
2006-08-21 19:46:43 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Psychology is dependant on chemistry for a complete understanding. Keep thinking.
2006-08-21 19:56:41 · update #1
Well this is helpful, it's like I'm hearing an echo of myself!
2006-08-21 22:40:03 · update #2
the answer: MATH
physics is difficult to understand or even difficult to discover without knowing mathematics.
all new theories in physics have a proof based on math calculations not observasions.
some thing that is proved by observation may be disproved by math, and the math proofs are the most acceptable ones.
even most formulas in chemistry is taken from physics and mathematics. the structure of an atom is described by the physics laws but scientist call it chemistry.
even math can prove or disprove the ideas in psychology, philosophy, or religion.
2006-08-21 20:10:09 · answer #1 · answered by ___ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you can call mathematics a science then mathematics is the most fundamental. EVERYTHING depends on mathematics.
If you go for the true sciences, as mathematics is largely a methodology employed by sciences, then physics is indisputably the most fundamental of sciences. It only depends on mathematics, and mathematics actually provides the language in which physics is described and understood. Physics is not dependent on maths for its actual concepts or principles.
Chemistry is applied physics, the most fundamental biosciences (biochemistry / molecular biology) are all applied chemistry, and all other biosciences are applied forms of molecular biology / biochemistry. Geology is applied chemistry. You can really draw a tree of dependencies for all the other sciences, at which physics would be at the root.
2006-08-22 04:42:23 · answer #2 · answered by the last ninja 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are too many applications from one science to the other which doesn't really make any of them fundamental. For example, chemistry and physics are hard to separate in some of the complex theories as one is needed to explain the other. For example, think about the physics you need to deal with for quantum mechanics or many of Niels Bohr's theories. You need to have an understanding of chemistry and subatomic particles to understand this.
I will echo you also in your bit about how to understand biology and chemistry entirely, but you forgot to mention that you need to understand biology to fully understand chemistry--especially biochemistry!
I don't classify mathematics as a science (but it is okay if you do), but one could argue that physics depends on mathematics and vice versa. Thus, physics does depend heavily on another subject as well.
Biophysics is also becoming more important as there is more material dealing with biological molecules and such, and physics is being applied to help explain a lot of it.
In conclusion, I think that they are all tied together, and that one needs to have at least a basic understanding of a few other sciences (and mathematics) in order to understand his speciality. If one only acquired general knowledge about one of the sciences, he may be ignorant enough to conclude that it is unrelated to the others, but that is only because he is only familiar with the most basic ideas of the field. Once you get into the complex issues of a science (and mathematics), you'll need to at least understand the general information from other sciences (and mathematics) as well. In my opinion, it is impossible to seperate one from the other, and anyone who claims to be able to do so is foolish! (...especially because he obviously hasn't encountered the complex issues which draw on knowledge from more than one field!) I can understand if one argues that one science is more (or less) fundamental in comparison to another though. It is a good think you have said "or close at least" in your question; otherwise, I may have had to brand you a fool! Ha ha...just teasing. I would have politely argued though! :)
It does seem that out of all of the sciences and mathematics, you can get away with knowing very little about the sciences to succeed in mathematics although that is a poor idea because there are so many physics applications associated with mathematics. Mathematics is also applied to chemistry (but not so much organic chemistry) and at least basic mathematics is certainly necessary for biology.
I would not argue that physics is more fundamental than biology or chemistry simply because you can apply one to the other. As I say above, you do need a good deal of chemistry to understand many physics theories properly. That is why one commonly encounters students at the university who have concentrations in both physics and chemistry (although it is the same for biology and chemistry...for example, I have concentrations in those two with biology as a "minor.").
2006-08-23 23:24:03 · answer #3 · answered by aanstalokaniskiodov_nikolai 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pure Mathematics
2006-08-22 03:18:36 · answer #4 · answered by ideaquest 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Psychology
2006-08-22 02:55:49 · answer #5 · answered by Ashish 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Physics. I consider maths to be the language of science. Since a language is less important than the message(Physics). For your information am not a physicist!
2006-08-22 03:29:00 · answer #6 · answered by SAREK 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mathematics. It doesn't depend on *any* thing else. (But, then, what would you expect a mathematician to say? âº)
Doug
2006-08-22 03:00:15 · answer #7 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
logic, philosophy and math; nothing else
2006-08-25 03:31:37 · answer #8 · answered by enhanced_neuronal_machine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋