<start>

Oolong says: This is a collaboration node for the use of the E2science usergroup. What appears below is a rough draft of an index of science by field. Once the categorisation is settled - and a few of the more glaring holes the list points up have been filled, perhaps - this index will be noded using the E2_Science account. The categories are mostly off the top of my head, supplemented by the Encyclopaedia Britannica's Propaedia and by various nodes. These have now been revised and augmented by several helpful E2science noders, but significant categories may still be missing. There are doubtless various places where we can sensibly go to the next level of detail here, I think; there may also be places where there is already too much detail. The organisation of this thing can doubtless be improved on. Feel free to make changes, but please make a note here of what you have done. Alternatively, /msg either myself or the group with suggestions.

Note that we also have at our disposal the E2_Science home node and scratchpad; any substantial suggestions anyone wishes to make to the general noding public regarding science noding or this group may be added to the home node, while the scratchpad may be a useful place to communicate to the group ideas which won't fit comfortably into /msg-length chunks. The password is entropy.


Gorgonzola says: I'm interested in a more-or-less comprehensive list, regardless of what's been noded or not. At the bottom of Oolong's list, I've added a section showing my idea of relating sciences to categories.


<log>

(Added ethology, paleontology, archaeology, unrated.

Some others we might like to find room for: forensic science, computer science, philology. I'm not sure about GTR and SR. Sure, they're separate theories. Are they really separate sciences? It's interesting to compare the way http://arxiv.org/ divides physics up... - jk)

(Took out Theory of Relativity - that node is really all special relativity. Left special relativity and general relativity in; they may not be sciences on their own account, but they're pretty major fields of study. I think it would be safe to include this much detail. We should perhaps stop at Quantum Field Theory rather than including QED & QCD at this level of organisation? Quantum field theory needs some work though, so it might be best to take that out and leave the other two instead... - Oo.)

(Added and organized several fields of physics. After browsing a few physics department web pages to try to construct it. I left out fields like "quantum optics" which to the best of my knowledge, are less fundamental than terms like "quantum field theory" and "quantum mechanics." in some cases less-general terms seemed appropriate...certainly special and general relativity deserve to be mentioned separately. i've heard terms like "biophysics" thrown about but i don't consider these fundamental at all. Also I added some math entries off the top of my head and organized algebra using a book on the subject. the question is--should this math section include all branches of math, or should it try to focus on applied mathematics. i'd probably lean toward the latter, in which case as stands the math section needs work.--eipi10)

(Added several branches of mathematics - graph theory, numerical analysis, game theory, dynamical system (this should probably be "systems"), differential geometry, combinatorics; and consolidated string theory, superstring theory, and M-theory under Grand Unification Theory in physics. I don't know of any non-string GUT's off the top of my head, there may be more. - Anark)

JerboaKolinowski asked me to join. I've added a sketch of a more modern (and "correct", in the sense of "this one's mine"...) organisation of mathematics, below. -- ariels

Adding taxonomy-related stuff -- rdude

2002:07:20 Have added Computer Science, with subcategories Formal language theory and Information theory, and fixed about five spelling errors here and there. There is the possibility that Graph theory, Numerical analysis, and a few others should go under CS, or maybe the lot of it should be under Number theory, which it all sort of boils down to. I'd like anybody's (but especially jk and ariels) input on this, preferably posted for public perusal rather than by message.

2002:07:24 Fixed some unclosed HTML tags, including one that was making the entire document italic. Pay attention, people. -- enth

Added several geography terms - if anyone more expert would like to expand/refine these, I'd be very grateful. - Tiefling

Adding some discreet tags to be able to access this as XML -- rdude

Gorgonzola, July 28, 2002 at 19:16:18: reorganized geography, geology, and psychology somewhat.

Added Astrophysics under Physics - wondering whether to leave Astronomy as such there; arguably it isn't really a branch of physics as such, but it would look silly as a top-level category when there is so little content in its node. I guess there's nothing much wrong with calling it physics really. Also removed paleogeology as unnecessary (as well as unnoded). - Oolong, 14/8/02

I've added an introduction, changed a couple of fields which were marked as 0 to s because their nodes at least had something about the subject, and removed the history and philosophy of science - they're not fields of science, and while I certainly think they're this group's business, they don't necessarily belong in this index. Also, disappointingly, there's no node covering either one yet. If someone writes them up they can go under 'See also' at the end. - Oolong, 22/8/02

(Added structural geology, sedimentology, stratigraphy and glacial geology - caknuck, 10/21/02)

<key>

Key

  • (0) = Nothing there, or just a nodeshell
  • (w) = Just a Webster 1913
  • (s) = Short, one way or another (to my eyes)
  • (M) = There's a lot of stuff here, but it's messy and could use work
  • (ok?) = Looks like it might be okay, but it's not really my field.
  • (ok) = Looks pretty good. Or, indeed, great.

<index>

Science arranged by field

This is the top level of Everything2's index of science, created collaboratively by the E2science usergroup. It is intended to provide a breakdown of science by major fields of study, providing links to nodes which will hopefully include both explanations and more detailed sets of links to areas within each field.

Science here is given a broad interpretation; for the sake of usefulness we include mathematics, medical science and all of the the social sciences, leaving aside any arguments about the applicability of the scientific method and what we ought to count as a science in any other context.

Suggestions for additions or corrections should be addressed to Oolong or the E2_Science user.