Talk:The central science

Opposed to merge

References are provided to demonstrate that this term is a commonly used. Also it a term used to describe chemistry, which is not the same as being chemistry. Thus I do not believe it should not be merged. I will remove the merge tags shortly if there is no reply to this comment. M stone 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the discussion at Talk:Chemistry#Created_.22Central_science.22, where several comments have already been made. --Itub 14:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with discussing the merge on the chemistry talk page is that those who visit this page (The central science) will be unaware of the discussion. I suggest moving the relevant comments here. M stone 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why. The discussion started there weeks ago. That talk page gets a lot more visitors than this one. We already have a link here pointing to the discussion there. --Itub 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand

why chemistry is called central science. I need to read this article before sriting anything else. Sorry! --Click me! write to me 19:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, physics is the central science. Because it explains the most difficult question "Why". Chemistry is a part of physics because chemistry deals with exchange of electrons in a "chemical" reaction.

Just because chemistry is more mature than physics does not mean that it gets a greater priority in modern day ...

I need to stop before I blabber anymore. --Click me! write to me 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry as the Science of Change

Chemistry can be seen as the science of change, chemical reaction. Although physical properties are used to define each substance, the chemical properties of substances involve the interchange amongst substances. It is in this light that chemistry can be seen as central to the sciences. Laburke 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)laburke 2007:08:30:22:44 GMT

Introduction

The first sentence should be deleted or re-written. The references do not mention or allude to the author's assertions. Therefore, I view the sentence as merely the opinion of the author.--Respectfully75.68.192.62 (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

Perhaps this article should qualify itself better through point of view. It is my understanding that this is how chemists tend to want to view chemistry, and therefore can depart from the truth in terms of their knowledge, and what they want to believe. For example, I am an Earth scientist, but I work much more closely with physics than through chemistry. Unless, of course, they mean that one can not think of the physics of materials except as modulated by their chemical makeup and structure. Just a thought, not a big deal... Awickert (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reductionism: chemistry is not applied quantum mechanics

The article says that "it has been argued that it cannot be fully 'reduced' to quantum mechanics." However, the work of Eric Scerri and others go actually beyond a mere suggestion. They have showed that the current claims of reductionism are either an belief or plain just wrong. E.g. Scerri has revised the claim of reductionism of the Periodic Table and found many mistakes in the claims of reductionism, including wrong periodicity. I have added the reference to his recent book (awarded "Outstanding Academic Title") in the topic. JuanR (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

http://m.xkcd.com/435/

This is not a good article. It lacks balance and accuracy. The article omits organic chemistry totally and the diagram is laughably bad, for instance not showing a link between mathematics and computer science, also about half the nodes on the diagram are of such small and constrained domains that they should not be there. An article like this needs to be written by people who have research level knowledge of the sciences mentioned. This article looks like it was written by an outsider. I suggest that it contributes too little to warrant being a wikipedia page, and that it should be deleeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JontheDuke (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes more sense if you view each node as inheriting from all prior nodes. Computer science then inherits mathematics through physics, chemistry, and nanoscience. Sizeofint (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The central science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323220047/http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/CNBP_022050/pdf/CNBP_022050.pdf to http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/CNBP_022050/pdf/CNBP_022050.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)