Talk:List of life sciences/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Life vs Applied science
Biocomputing etc are all Applied sciences that rely on Life sciences like Genetics and Molecular Biology but are not Life sciences themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.13.84 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
repeated items in the list
For example Botany is the same like plant sciences. --188.161.252.119 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
"Natural science" template verse article
wow
List
This article is a list and should be named "List of life sciences" as per the MOS entry WP: LISTNAME. What do you say? Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly. If so, it needs a parent, which would be an overview of the life sciences (isn't that Biology?) with a definition, summary, and link to the list. It's odd that Biology is in the list as it's the parent, BTW. It should probably be moved to the top; if indeed we can see any difference between B and the LS parent? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- yes that makes sense. i think the list article is useful. this would take up too much space in the Biology article, which has a list we may want to take out and incorporate here. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- (comment) Looks to me like the list on this page is very similar to Biology#Branches_of_biology, however there are some items that are missing from here. Is it the case that "life sciences = biology"? --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- yes that makes sense. i think the list article is useful. this would take up too much space in the Biology article, which has a list we may want to take out and incorporate here. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly. If so, it needs a parent, which would be an overview of the life sciences (isn't that Biology?) with a definition, summary, and link to the list. It's odd that Biology is in the list as it's the parent, BTW. It should probably be moved to the top; if indeed we can see any difference between B and the LS parent? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- The life sciences are much more than biology and this is reflected both in name and dictionary definition. The section Nick links to may have other entries - a sign of an unfinished article - but in no way could I say that
medicinemedical imaging is a field of biology and keep a straight face. This would be equivalent to reducing the physical sciences to physics, and claiming that organic chemistry is a field of physics. Technically, you can draw relationships on paper, but they have very different histories (natural philosophy and alchemy, for example) and one cannot subsume the other. On the original point, social sciences appears a much better template. This article can be so much more than just a linear list. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- The life sciences are much more than biology and this is reflected both in name and dictionary definition. The section Nick links to may have other entries - a sign of an unfinished article - but in no way could I say that
- That seems cogent, but raises questions like why Medicine isn't on the list - guess it is both life science and practice, just as engineering uses physics but isn't a science. There's no reason, though, why the list should not be split off from the article if it's taking on a life of its own. What do you mean by referring to social sciences? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies, faulty memory, and typing combined. I suppose whether the health professions are part of the life sciences is a slightly off-point matter. I meant that social science has a history section, followed by several list-like sections, and then considers methodology and education in the field. Formal science seeks to differentiate itself from other areas and provides some historical context. It's just my POV that these are more useful to the encyclopedia than list articles. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Inconsistencies in the list according to the definition given
There is an inconsistency and conflict between the definition of "Life sciences" in the Science template and the one given here. "Medicine and its branches" are applied sciences and, by definition, not a "branch of life sciences" since life sciences are "basic sciences" that are defined in the lead of this page as "the branches of science that involve the scientific study of organisms – such as microorganisms, plants, and animals including human beings" which is the definition of biology. Instead, as written in the science template "physical sciences" include physics, chemistry, earth science and astronomy, while life sciences only include biology and its branches. To be consistent with the definition and the template, I propose to move the Medicine and its branches content in the branches of health sciences article. --ATPhosphate (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)