Taxonomy of the Sciences
by Jonathan Quince
Friday, August 18, 2006 14:52:39
Oft do I see attempts to place the divers realms of Science into some sort of hierarchy. Typically, the pecking order is built by defining modular dependencies: Chemistry is based on the laws of Physics. Biology is based on Chemistry. Physics, in turn, is dependent on Mathematics. Therefore, every physical scientist must bow down in awe and gratitude to mathematicians. Hail Math!
Today, I would rather discard the snarky, snotty hierarchies and produce a different type of conceptual taxonomy. The delineations are fuzzy; for example, there is broad overlap between applied Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and the more esoteric domains of Computer Programming. Yet the following should provide a general descriptive view of a few fundamental disciplines. Behold:
- Physics
- The Laws of Nature
- Chemistry
- Nature’s Lego Set
- Biology
- The Study of Life
- Engineering
- The Science of Building Useful Stuff Using Science (i.e., applying Applied Science to applied technology)
- Mathematics
- Physics of Hyperreality
- Computer Science
- Engineering of Hyperreality
- Computer Engineering
- Combination of the Engineering of Hyperreality (architecture, software, architecture-level hardware) with the Engineering of Reality (physical-level hardware).
- Computer Programming
- Construction work to implement Computer Engineering. Computer programmers may be either fine artisans (wizard code hackers) or (semi-)skilled laborers (code monkeys); most fall into the latter category. Monkeytude of a Computer Programmer is inversely proportional to the degree that said Programmer is also an Engineer, and proportional to how blindly the Programmer is hauling about 2×4s and nailing them into place. The hideous state of current software results from most site foremen (and even architects) being more-experienced code monkeys rather than studied Engineers. Were this state replicated in physical reality, most buildings and bridges would simply collapse under their own weight; for experience in welding beams does not grant the knowledge requisite for determining how the beams should be configured, and why.
Does this turn physicists into Nature’s juris doctors, and physical engineers into Natural working lawyers? (My first instinct is to say, Perish the thought! But aye, yet the laws of Nature are not corrupted like the laws of mankind.) Should Lego go into the business of producing chemistry sets? If God requires an algorithmic hyperskyscraper built in purely-abstract hyperreal space, does he call upon Computer Scientists? And are mathematicians, after all, only discovering the hyperlaw from Paul Erdős’ fabled Book?
The above is but a terribly abbreviated overview of a certain perspective in the sciences; and like much “soft” philosophy, it is a rough and squishy model at that. I find it nonetheless both amusing and useful. And in that spirit, with a wink and a smiling heart, may I propose a toast: Here’s to all the useful sciences, for they impart to humanity an advancement in richness heretofore extant only in dreams.