Looking at the science threads, chemistry has by far the lowest number of viewers, posts, and resulting threads. (apart from comparitive religion, and why is that in this section?)


Any ideas why that is?

(apart from comparitive religion, and why is that in this section?)

It's in this section because it is a science, no less than Anthropology is a science.

It's in this section because it is a science, no less than Anthropology is a science.

And why isn't History a science then?

I've just done a few googles to see how many results come up, using the inverted commas

"Science of History" 99,000
"Science of Biology" 121,000
"Science of Chemistry" 64,000
"Science of Religion" 91,000
"Science of Comparative Religion" 3,780
"Science of Cosmology" 13,300
"Science of Physics" 50,600
"Science of Anthropology" 20,300
"Science of Fortune Telling" 2,050
"Science of Music" 84,100

Religion, and History, and even fortune telling seem to be regarded as sciences, at least by web site creators. I suppose if you are applying scientific methods to a subject, anything can have a scientific aspect.

Looking at the science threads, chemistry has by far the lowest number of viewers, posts, and resulting threads. (apart from comparitive religion, and why is that in this section?)


Any ideas why that is?
The Chemistry, Comparative Religion, and Linguistics subforums were only created within the last few months. The others have been around for much longer.

The Chemistry, Comparative Religion, and Linguistics subforums were only created within the last few months. The others have been around for much longer.
Thanks przyk. That explains it.

It's in this section because it is a science, no less than Anthropology is a science.
Has anyone ever done a comparative religion experiment? Do people formulate theories of comparative religion and then proceed to support or refute them with empirical data?

I’m not trying to be flippant, I’m really asking because I don’t know much/anything about the field.

I saw the title and thought this was more about society in general.
To which my answer is:
Since the basics and even many advanced concepts in chemistry were worked out so long ago that they have been completely absorbed into peoples everyday lives, nobody notices chemistry much. The triumph of the atomic theory, the structures of organic chemistry, even x-ray diffractometry, all have been worked out and utilised in modern life and industry, so that chemistry is percieved to have much less immediate relevance or "coolness" to people.

As for this bit of the forum being quiet, that is partly because chemistry is pretty much settled, in the way that physics and biology aren't. You'll probably find that half the threads in the physics and cosmology section are by obsessive braindead people who think Einstein was wrong, but somehow can't seem to explain how.

As for this bit of the forum being quiet, that is partly because chemistry is pretty much settled, in the way that physics and biology aren't.
That’s more or less true. The research that you’ll find going on in a cutting-edge university or industry lab usually involves things like developing new drugs, making interesting new materials for better microchips/bulletproof vests/whatever, developing catalysts for industry that will magically turn one type of chemical into another, trying to make better fuel cells, developing more environmentally-friendly ways to make various products...the list goes on and on, but you won’t find many people studying the fundamentals of how and why chemicals react.

People don't spend much time studying fundamentals, but rather spend time working on the many things that you can't hope to do without a very good understanding of chemistry. You'll probably find that half the threads in the physics and cosmology section are by obsessive braindead people who think Einstein was wrong, but somehow can't seem to explain how.
This is also true. For some reason uneducated people don't seem to be inclined to decide that they know better than the experts when it comes to matters of chemistry, but they certainly do for physics.

I'm not clear as to whether you are being sarcastic or not. to phrase it another way (because the practise will be good for me) the main point is that, whilst physics and cosmology are still struggling with the idea of a TOE and people still reject relativity, and conversely, biology keeps finding strange new species and people still reject evolution, I have yet to see anyone reject chemistry and atomism, and all the stuff you talk about is treated as background by the media.

"We've invented this great new drug!"
"Great, so what does it do?"
"Don't you want to hear about the intricate and cunning synthesis steps we took to make it?"
"No, just tell us what it does"

The research that you’ll find going on in a cutting-edge university or industry lab usually involves things like developing new drugs, making interesting new materials for better microchips/bulletproof vests/whatever, developing catalysts for industry that will magically turn one type of chemical into another, trying to make better fuel cells, developing more environmentally-friendly ways to make various products...the list goes on and on, but you won’t find many people studying the fundamentals of how and why chemicals react.


These all sound like interesting subjects for the forum. Perhaps its remit should be widened. The only pure chemistry which would attract posts is illegal drug manufacture and explosive production. I don't know what things are like in the US, but in Britain, to have any information on the latter even stored on your computer is a criminal offence, and any correspondence on the former would quickly cause you problems. There's a lot else to discuss. In particular I have a feeling that the development of better fuel cells will become increasingly important.

Of the three major sciences, chemistry is the latest, in fact chemistry is only about a few years old, while Physics, mathematics, and biology have been around for thousands. Chemistry has never been though of as a branch of science itself until recently. Chemistry is sort of like a 24 hr tech support for all other sciences, nobody goes to the chemist until they run into trouble while developing something. For instance, physicists building a new aircraft may need better knowledge into developing body parts for their plane, and may have to consult metalurgical firms for inputs. A biomedical company may also consult chemists for analysis of certain intricate samples. Chemistry and metarlurgy is sort of like an extension of all sciences, and sometimes you can't differenciate chemistry from other sciences-the same way you can't differenciate advanced nuclear chemistry from Quantum mechs.

I don't know what things are like in the US, but in Britain, to have any information on the latter even stored on your computer is a criminal offence, and any correspondence on the former would quickly cause you problems.
Really? It's illegal to simply have the information??? Man, remind me to never visit Britain.

Originally Posted by Chris Cremin
I don't know what things are like in the US, but in Britain, to have any information on the latter even stored on your computer is a criminal offence, and any correspondence on the former would quickly cause you problems.

I haven't got into trouble (so far) and I've been collecting such data for over 30 years.
If they do come and look I'm completely buggered (although I did get away with having an AK-47 leant against the wall in the front room when a detective inspector and his oppo came for a visit a couple of years ago...)

Chris, I dont think it is technically illegal, except that if they do decide your a terrorist, they can use it as evidence that you were planning a bombing campaign. I merely have old chemistry textbooks, one of which, for example, has the complete instructions for making gunpowder, and potassium nitrate in industrial quantities.

I merely have old chemistry textbooks, one of which,
for example, has the complete instructions for making gunpowder, and potassium nitrate in industrial quantities.

Pfft, my hard drive is full of nuclear weapons technology... :eek:

Oli, I assume the AK 47 was properly de-activated?

Yeah, but the coppers still went ballistic!

Then that goes to show they shouldnt be doing house calls. One of my friends has over a dozen swords in the house, but only one of them is sharp. THe police never seem interested in him.

Ah well, they had an excuse for the call.
There had been a rape in the area and they were asking round the entire street to see if anyone had seen anything...
(They didn't see my swords or the other guns upstairs :))

Chris, I dont think it is technically illegal, except that if they do decide your a terrorist, they can use it as evidence that you were planning a bombing campaign. I merely have old chemistry textbooks, one of which, for example, has the complete instructions for making gunpowder, and potassium nitrate in industrial quantities.
You are probably right. They are making up laws so quickly to restrict freedoms, that it is hard to know what is legal and what is not.

I wonder if there is a case for listing items in multiple forums, say on a 1st, 2nd, 3rd basis. It is almost a waste of time introducing topics to the Chemistry or History sections. I am a newbie and I have already introduced a question that would be better suited to people interested in History to another section, simply because I thought I had an important question and I wanted it looked at. There were 37x the number of people looking at the time.
I understand that this may present programming difficulties and not be possible, but I wonder if people have looked at it.

I know nothing about forum mechanics, but that might be a bit tricky. I think that if you want a topic looked at, a good title is key, so that people see it pop up and have a look.

Looking at the science threads, chemistry has by far the lowest number of viewers, posts, and resulting threads. (apart from comparitive religion, and why is that in this section?)


Any ideas why that is?
It is more specialized then the others. Other forums are broader. And this forum is fairly new too...

Actually, Chemistry as a topic is broader than all the others in this section. It's just that actually looking into anything related to it is actually quite hard. How much doyou know about quantum chemistry, pharmacology, metallurgy, combustion, catalysis, and a bunch of other topics? Probably not enough to be able to hold much of a conversation about them.

Actually, Chemistry as a topic is broader than all the others in this section. It's just that actually looking into anything related to it is actually quite hard. How much doyou know about quantum chemistry, pharmacology, metallurgy, combustion, catalysis, and a bunch of other topics? Probably not enough to be able to hold much of a conversation about them.
First of all, quantum chemistry is physics. Second, pharmacollogy is usually discussed as part of biology. Finally, the other stuff uses basic chemistry. So, in other words, we are back to square one! :D

Ahhh, well there I disagree. When I was back at uni, doign chemistry, quantum chemistry was regarded as a mix between physics and cemshitry, but in the chemistry department, in part because it ultimately was about the behaviour of atoms. We even did a bit of quantum physics as part of the degree. Then pharmacology again depends on the chemical structure of the molecules in question. AS for the other stuff, it is a misnomer that they use basic chemistry. Thats what is so much fun abotu chemistry, the basic stuff is easy enough, but then it fits together in hugely complex ways.

Cemistri is very difficult science...

First of all, quantum chemistry is physics. Second, pharmacollogy is usually discussed as part of biology. Finally, the other stuff uses basic chemistry. So, in other words, we are back to square one! :D

I think that the problem with chemistry is that all the basic problems have been solved.
Industrial chemistry is not going to interest a lot of people.
Most of the best bits have been co-opted into other areas.
Genetics, Pharmaceuticals, Quantum Chemistry. etc.
The chemists have not made a good job at defending their territory.

Since the basics and even many advanced concepts in chemistry were worked out so long ago that they have been completely absorbed into peoples everyday lives, nobody notices chemistry much. The triumph of the atomic theory, the structures of organic chemistry, even x-ray diffractometry, all have been worked out and utilised in modern life and industry, so that chemistry is percieved to have much less immediate relevance or "coolness" to people.It has been said that the 19th was the Century of Chemistry, the 20th was the Century of Physics, and the 21st will be the Century of Biology.

Chemistry today has a higher profile as engineering than as science, which is a sure sign that it's a mature discipline.

As for defining what is and is not a "science," as far as I'm concerned at a minimum it must adhere to the scientific method. Its theories must be:Based upon observations Elaborated by logical reasoning Prioritized with Occam's Razor Peer reviewed DisprovableThis is not a complete list but it's enough for our purposes. I think that rules out fortune telling, but barely accommodates anthropology.

Genetics, Pharmaceuticals, Quantum Chemistry. etc.
The chemists have not made a good job at defending their territory.
All of those things fall under the chemistry department at my university (although the biology department does plenty of stuff on their own with genetics, of course).