Talk:Outline of physical science

Arrow To The Knee 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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

I would disagree with User:Powo, I study both Physics and Computer Science and I would not call CS a physical science. Computer Science is no more physical than Mathematics. Theoretical Computer Science (the sort Powo was referencing two in parts) deals with not the evolution of a physical system, but with computation.... computation done on a theoretical turing machine, usually with unlimitted memory, and thus fundamentally non-physical. Also, most of the study of CS deals with abstraction that is rarely linked to physical phenomena (much like mathematics), while Physics (which is also very highly abstaract at upper levels) links its abstaraction to the physical world and physical phenomena. As for the "computer science" that deals with the "evolution" of a physical system, that is more the engineering section, which is more often referred to as 'Software Engineering' or 'Computer Engineering'. Last, on the point of study of information.... Physics and Computer Science studies information in fundamentally diffferent ways. Physics studies information from a physical prospective, while Computer Science studies it as a theoretical abstaraction. --DFRussia 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I was wondering if anyone was up for improving the look of the Basic Principles section, or in general of classifying the fields. I think math has a very good way of doing their description and visual representation of fields and subfields. Does anyone feel upto the tast of moving the Physical science section to the same standard with me? Also, does anyone oppose? --DFRussia 11:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well I tried to spify up the section. Hopefully everyone enjoys it. I will see if I can come up with any ideas to merge basic principles, etc.... --DFRussia 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Meissner effect.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the following section from the article. Any relevant information inside the section should be wikified and inserted in the article in the form of normal text. Feer 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss this here first before reinserting without rationale. Thanks. Feer 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I mention my reasoning in the "Spify up the Basic Principles and Fields sections" higher up on this talk page --DFRussia (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that before. The example you give above (the math article) actually looks pretty nice. I guess my main objection with the image-table above is the fact that it makes the article look more like some kind of portal instead of an encyclopedia article. It's just a bit too big. But integrating the seperate images, cf. the example at math could actually be a nice idea. Just try to keep the article layout balanced. Feer 12:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please add some relevant links to the history section.

Links can be found in the "History of" article for this subject, in the "History of" category for this subject, or in the corresponding navigation templates. Or you could search for topics on Google - most topics turn blue when added to Wikipedia as internal links.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't seem an appropriate place to list universities that teach physical science. At this time, only two are listed, so this looks like marketing. Do it elsewhere. Parveson (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply