User talk:Arthur E. Stewart
 | If you leave me a message here, I'll reply here; but if I've left a note on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, as I'll be watching your page for a short while. Talk-page pings are supererogatory but appreciated (as per the usual syntax: {{reply to|Arthur E. Stewart}} Message text. ~~~~). |
Hello![edit]
I saw that you changed the word in linguistics from "natural sciences" to "formal sciences". In opposition to the "social sciences", that is. Can we use the term "pure sciences" instead of "formal sciences"? What is your opinion and view on that? Heartily (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Heartily. I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding. Rather than removing the phrase "natural sciences", I added to it. Both the phrase "natural sciences" and the phrase "formal sciences" are now present in the passage to which you are referring. I also added (in the same revision) a source to verify that linguistics possesses elements characteristic of formal sciences, and this does not contradict the assertion that linguistics also possesses elements characteristic of natural or social sciences – or even the humanities, for that matter. Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Heartily: By the way, I'm unsure if this is still relevant, but it may be worth for me to mention that the phrase "pure science" is typically used in the same sense as "theoretical science" or "basic research", as a contrast to "applied science". However, as pointed out in the article Outline of linguistics, the science of linguistics has both a theoretical branch and an applied branch, meaning that linguistics as a whole is neither exclusively theoretical nor exclusively applied. Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Arthur E. Stewart. Apologies for missing it out that both terms are still present (natural and formal), that is. I do agree with you about the terminology, and the relationship between pure/theoretical and applied. But wouldn't pure sciences include biology, chemistry and physics, while theoretical sciences only mathematics? So, perhaps, pure science approaches to linguistics may be found in biolinguistics while theoretical/mathematical ones in generative grammar. I do understand that these terms are complexly interwoven, but I'm writing all this only for the purpose of furthering the discussion, so that we are able to learn/know more, and gain ways to expand the article in the meanwhile. Note that I haven't changed anything to what you've edited last and don't feel the need to. Heartily (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Heartily: No problem. In regards to the terms "pure science" and "applied science", I agree that it's somewhat confusing and ambiguous, with variable usage, and I don't know that these terms are standardized by any authoritative body (unlike, for example, the ISCO-08 as published by the ILO, a UN agency).
What I can say, with certainty, is that mathematics too is spoken of as having both pure (or theoretical) branches as well as applied branches. The term "applied mathematics" is used to label such fields as statistics, probability theory, game theory, information theory, actuarial science, mathematical economics, mathematical sociology, mathematical physics, etc. To add to the confusion, some of these fields are purely theoretical, but at the same time, they represent applications of mathematics to otherwise non-mathematical problems.
As for biology, I don't think it's very common to refer to "applied biology", but the entry List of life sciences does use the phrase "applied life science". (Think medicine, agronomy, biotechnology, bioengineering, etc.)
Likewise with applied chemistry and applied physics, there exist applications such as engineering, pharmacology and forensics.
Classifications of linguistic subfields are listed in Outline of linguistics and Category:Branches of linguistics. Generative grammar (or generative linguistics) is indeed listed by the former as a subfield of theoretical linguistics. (You might also be interested in these entries: Outline of applied science and Outline of science, Outline of academic disciplines.) Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, applied sciences apply to both pure and theoretical ones. I agree that there is an applied field to every discipline, even to the social sciences for that matter. Applied history would probably mean journalism while applied psychology would mean psychotherapy as well as industrial psychology and applied economics would mean business, commerce, or management. But the difference between pure and theoretical is that the pure sciences involve material sciences that deal with the basic properties of hard matter (like biology of the body, botany of plants, zoology for animals, chemicals for chemistry, and solids, liquids, and gases for physics, and so on, all applicable to medicine, engineering, and so on as you mentioned) whereas theoretical ones would involve only abstract concepts (for mathematics and its applications). Social sciences would on the other hand mean disciplines that deal with analysis of real-world or hypothetical situations and events, again applicable to fields and jobs and tasks that need to be carried out elsewhere, just like those in the pure/theoretical sciences. Heartily (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Heartily: I think I now understand what you mean. You're using the expression "pure sciences" to refer to what is more commonly referred to as "natural sciences", while using the expression "theoretical sciences" to refer to what is more commonly referred to as "formal sciences". You also point out, fittingly, that unlike the formal sciences, the natural and social sciences are not purely abstract in their subject matter. These interrelations between these fields, as you've described them, are illustrated in this table. Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Arthur E. Stewart: thanks for seeing the point. Yes, you're right. I was using those terms for the more common terminology that is used. Both terminologies are correct and I think we are on the same page. Heartily (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Heartily: I think I now understand what you mean. You're using the expression "pure sciences" to refer to what is more commonly referred to as "natural sciences", while using the expression "theoretical sciences" to refer to what is more commonly referred to as "formal sciences". You also point out, fittingly, that unlike the formal sciences, the natural and social sciences are not purely abstract in their subject matter. These interrelations between these fields, as you've described them, are illustrated in this table. Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
.[edit]
. 43.252.248.38 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)