[Hoiten]

Yo, wondering about the depth in computer science, maths and theoretical physics versus fields like chemistry, economics, linguistics, biology, and geology, etc. Am I wrong to have the impression that the left side is deeper, harder, more maths intensive and alltogether just better? Linguistics ain't very math dependent, but seems like a young and simple field. Econ involves different type of skill other than maths, namely psychology, but can that even be called hard? The other fields I named also seems second class.

Also, I would like to add this: The level of math is of course higher in math than anywhere else, and the uppermost part of theoretical physics has some pretty hard math too. Can chemistry really be called comparable in math difficulty? Of course, I might be wrong, but I've rarely seen people point out actual examples and concepts which require a different type of skill (And what this skill entails, most of all) other than math. some say physics require more visualization, but big a part is this of most physicists research? How much is it used in one subfield compared compared to another? Is "visualization" useless in for example particle physics while greatly useful and hard to master in astrophysics? Etc. What about, say geology? Does that require visualization, or at least have some other skill to make up for the lack of mathematical challenge?

I'm also interested in how easy it is to get a job as a researcher. I've heard and read unusual stories - no place for newcomers in physics, math field is full, etc, CS full of new fields to explore, medical is cutthroat, etc. Look at the following

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/279.page

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415643

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page2.htm

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page1.htm

The first link is full of horror stories from the medical field. The second is shocking. My interpretation of the data is that one spends tons of time just reading other people's work in medical sciences. But I want to chase scientific success and make a name for my self, not read other people's works... Thus CS and maths seem better, just get to the problems, simple and easy. Probably less paperwork and teaching too. And about that, what's the best way to avoid those two things in academia?

[enahs]

Your post is all over the place.

Yes, there is, on average, a lot more complicated math in Physics and Mathematics then in Chemistry. Though, some physical chemist and computational chemists do absolutely nothing but complex math.


If you really like math and computer science and also want a really damn good paying job, in a market short of workers in the field, go for statistics. The math in cutting edge statistics is hard, you use every form of traditional and complex math, as well as constantly developing new techniques. You also have to know how to program and do other computer related stuff.

That is, if you are involved in the statistics research side of things (i.e., doing the statistics for cutting edge research, not just like car insurance companies).

On the plus side, it pays really damn well and there is not enough people doing it. Its really damn hard though to get good at statistics. You have to know almost just as much about general math as a mathematician, as well as a whole bunch of other stuff. And, you are at a very large advantage if you understand the science of what you are doing statistics on, taking it to the next level.


As far as a decent paying "job" Chemistry is by far the safest bet in my opinion. Chemistry and Chemist are used in nearly everything. As far as when it comes to doing research, that varies all the time, depending on the economy, etc.

As for spending tons of time just reading other peoples work, all scientific fields do that. That is how you learn. It is impossible to do everything, so you learn from other people.


You really should just go for a job/career that you think you would enjoy working in, that is the most important thing. And just FYI, Chemistry is the most versatile field, and if you do not like what you are doing, you have so many more options and things to try.


 

[Jorriss]

As an undergraduate or in terms of just course work, yeah, I'd say math is harder than any field. Infact, math is just all around harder than any field imo. Courses like real analysis are, on average, much more difficult than P chem or organic or anything chemistry has to offer.

That being said, who cares? It's not a dick measuring contest.

Also, if you want to go into math a huge amount of your time is still just reading papers and colloborating with peers. Even for geniuses like Terence Tao (whom said the same thing on his blog when dispelling some myths about the glamor of math).

[Hoiten]

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. 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 chemistry have similar scandals to the one I just listed right above?

[408]

Seems like a bandwagon for predator capitalists to justify their moral wrongdoings.

Facts cause justification.
predatory is the perfect verb here, after all the rational, unforced exchange of money for a good or service is predatory.
Wait till the jackboots of socialism are on your throat once you actually make money, and see which behavior is predatory.  You speak of morality as if yours is an absolute, but in the absence of capitalism(the free exchange of goods and services using the fiction known as money) what is the essence of the alternative, but a gun at ones head?  I want no part of a society based on your morality, which is that of force.  Please stick to hard sciences for the sake of human rights.

[BrokeDown]

Do mathematics with a computer science minor or computer science with a math minor.  At least you won't be unemployed or underpaid ($30 k per year)like the vast swaths of us BS chemistry and biochemistry students.