![]() | 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 | Archive 2 |
Isn't Computer Animation an Academic Discipline? -reallycoolguy
Nice start, but maybe we should have links to the list of biology topics style pages?
Already done. See Lists of articles by category. GUllman 19:58 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
John Nash spent a year applying his mathematical training to some extremely complicated, and logical, numerology. He felt he was conducting mathematics (as do most numerologists) and the POV that numerology is not mathematics should not be considered absolute truth. I believe Kepler, and possibly Newton, were also interested in numerology as a mathematical science. I have agreed to place astrology under amateur astronomy since its probably fair to say that most astrologists are not "professional" astronomers. Pizza Puzzle
A tough situation on numerology: Most numerologists consider themselves to be conducting mathematics (so it is claimed above -- I dunno myself), whereas the vast majority of professional mathematicians consider numerologists not to be conducting mathematics. So who gets to decide the relationship? No matter how cool Kepler and Newton were, I don't think their views are very relevant here; they simply had some views that are now out of date. [I am a mathematician. I think that numerology is not mathematics.]
Since this is about organizing categories by academic discipline, it seems useful to ask: In which academic department do you find Numerology? Unfortunately for the whole idea of organizing Wikipedia topics by academic discipline, the answer is probably that no academic department includes numerology.
It is possible that Pizza Puzzle and John Nash have some different idea of what numerology is than I do. I tend to agree with the Wikipedia article on numerology, which seems to make clear that numerology is not a branch of mathematics.
Actually, it is probably true that numerologists conduct mathematics in the process of conducting numerology, and some of it may be very interesting mathematics. However, physicists and psychologists and economists (and sometimes historians and painters...) also conduct very interesting mathematics in pursuit of their disciplines. But these are not subdisciplines of mathematics.
I'd like to arrange the academic disciplines grouped by "meta-disciplines", but I don't know how controversial that move is. A proposed arrangement could be:
Comments, anyone? -- till we *) 14:35, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
It is an interesting thing, but perhaps one having no bearing on the potential contents of this page, that Harvard has a department of Visual and Environmental Studies, which encompassses, largely, what other schools would call an Art department. -- Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't Zoology be under Biology? -- Steinsky 15:33, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Tillwe's proposed breakdown looks kind of weird to me. It omits the humanities completely, and gives several "hard science" subgroups, Philosophy, and "language study" top-level positions, which is uncommon, at least in US universities. I'd propose something more like:
It's unclear where the cognitive sciences should go -- perhaps psychology and linguistics under social sciences, and neuroscience under biology. There are definitely going to be boundary cases in any event, and different universities slice all of these fields quite differently.
Rbellin 19:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Psychology is definitely not biology. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I don't know how detailed we want to make this list? The stated criteria are 1) recognized discipline, 2) with university courses dedicated to the subject, and 3) academic journals dedicated to the subject. If this is the criteria that we wish to use, then the economics section should include labour economics, econometrics, welfare economics, international economics, economic history, managerial economics, history of economic thought, economic geography, political economy, development economics, spatial economics, environmental economics, health economics, economic anthropology, transport economics, urban economics, and public finance. mydogategodshat 06:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Exactly...why not. Lirath Q. Pynnor
There seems to be some disagreement about Astrology and Numerology. I believe that they do not belong here, because one does not go to college (or university) to get a degree in Astrology or Numerology, which is what the title List of academic disciplines implies. I will be removing them now. — Xoder | ✎ 16:37, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
These are academic fields, it is simply your personal POV that they are not worthy of academic study. Many people do study these rigorously, there are schools one can attend for these purposes. The article at Numerology says "it used to be considered part of mathematics" -- obviously, some people still consider it to be part of mathematics. Lirath Q. Pynnor
There is no such thing as "accredited" numerology, that doesn't mean people don't study it. Even if it weren't studied, you should know from history that it used to be studied very rigorously (as mathematics); thus, it should be listed here. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Even if you were right, there would be no harm in listing them here. However, there are academies of numerology -- such as those found at [1]. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Samuel J. Howard commented on the removal of "Letters" from the section header "Humanities and Arts and Letters." My feeling is that "Letters" is redundant, since literature, philosophy, and the classics are the implication of "letters" in the sense given by the OED (II.6.b): "the profession of literature, authorship. man of letters [= F. homme de lettres]: a man of learning, a scholar; now usually, a man of the literary profession, an author." However, "Arts," designating the creative arts, is not redundant, since these aren't usually considered part of the humanities. Thoughts? -- Rbellin 15:44, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we could go with "
Humanities and
Fine Arts", since
Arts is redundent with
Humanities, see the article
Arts. I would however like to keep Fine Arts in the same section as the rest of the humanities, as otherwise music will have to be seperated into it's fine art and humanities sections which would be pain.--
Samuel J. Howard 16:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm also wondering about the whole area, cultural etc. studies area, but I don't have my thoughts straight yet.-- Samuel J. Howard 16:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For the technology segment I added would be approiate for this page. Send a comment to my user page whether it is or not. Heegoop, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(Excised)
I think these are redundant with other areas in the listing.... thoughts?-- Samuel J. Howard 03:02, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
This edit introduced " Behavioural sciences" as a new top-level category. I have reverted it for now, as it seems like a drastic reorganization and I would like to hear other editors' opinions on a change of this scope. Putting "behavioral science" on a par with the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences as a fundamental category of academic inquiry does not square with my impression of common practice at the majority of the institutions I know of. Granted, cognitive science, linguistics, and psychology et al. are on the rise across academia right now, but most institutions (apart from Hampshire College) have not granted them this fundamental a status. -- Rbellin| Talk 05:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rbellion,
You reverted the section on behavioural sciences as you felt that it was a "promotion of behavioural sciences". I do not know how putting subjects under a certain section could be promoting a nomenclature.
secondly, you wrote- to quote certain sections. "Putting "behavioral science" on a par with the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.... does not square with my impression of common practice at the majority of the institutions I know of.... but most institutions (apart from Hampshire College) have not granted them this fundamental a status."
I would like to tell you that most of the major universities around the world have been publishing and contributing to peer reviewed academic journals under the FUNDAMENTAL STATUS of "behavioural sciences" eg: scientific journals and scholarly publications like Behavioral Science (since around 1960, Journal of applied Behavioral science (for over 40 years), and Behavioral and brain sciences.
Besides Stanford University has a centre named as Centre for advanced study in the behavioral sciences and Heidelberg University in germany has what is called as Faculty of behavioral sciences and empirical cultural studies.
Behavioural sciences is a term used in most encyclopedias and journals. The term is not academic boosterism or promotion of any disciplines. (I don't understand what promotion means in this context). Robin klein 08:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rbellion,
Yes indeed wikipedia has had an article on behavioral science for only 2 weeks and that has been written/edited by me. the reason is not because I wrote it for the first time, but rather the page behavioral science was redirected erroneously by someone for over 2 years to the page behaviourism (which is a movement within psychology) and not a category of science.
I wrote the page to rectify this and wrote the definition of behavioral science as taken by leading journals of behavioural sciences. Even Encyclopædia Britannica has a separate page only for behavioural sciences. The definition provided by me is not mine, but as proposed by the journals of behavioral sciences, since it is the journals and not departments that define disciplines.
secondly, according to APA ( American Psychological Association) and other organizations of scientific researchers, academic disciplines are not dictated or categorized by administrative structure of departments. Instead, according to these scientific organizations new academic disciplines are first brought to the fore by newer classification or introduction of newer category or terminology in recent research papers, and the introduction of new journals in order to foster research in new dimensions. eg: the journal Cognitive Science began publication much earlier than most universities began giving cognitive science or cognitive science as a course. so the method of following university department administrative structure to classify disciplines or sciences is not accurate. Instead to follow the advice of scientific publications like nature, science, and the organizations like APA, one should follow the disciplines as categorized by up-to date journals that publish new research. Academic department structure follow the categories published by journals and not the other way round.
When one is listing academic disciplines it should therefore be based on academic classifications as constantly revised by recent or latest categories as published by leading scientific journals. It is precisely for these reasons that universities first set up centres for new categories and disciplines before setting up new administrative departments. eg: Stanford University centre for advanced study in the behavioral sciences.
you asked me, "What, in your view, makes behavioral science special enough to warrant a top-level place in the hierarchy of this list, if that's not boosterism?"
well it is not my thought but that of scientific journals like Nature, Science and other research organizations that publishes recent research that behavioural sciences are SPECIAL enough to warrant a separate level of classification, which I guess in your point of view (POV) is called as top-level place in hierarchy. I guess when established PEER-REVIEWED scientific journals consider it worthy to classify the Behavioural sciences as distinct of separate categorization then it is not a case of academic boosterism. though it could probably hurt individual point of view, of course. Robin klein 03:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As you say, Behavoiral Science is considered a seperate category of science in the latest journals. Hence it goes under science!-- Samuel J. Howard 04:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Doing some more research, it appears that there are several common uses of the term "behavioral science" in English, one is a collation of education, psychology, social work, and such (see for instance the California Board of Behavioral Sciences), another is as a rough synonym with "cognitive science". The kind of thing reflected in the wikipedia article Behavioral science doesn't seem to follow the "principle of least surprise" and may approach "original research" in its lack of wide acceptance.-- Samuel J. Howard 04:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Samuel J. Howard Stated "The kind of thing reflected in the wikipedia article Behavioral science .....in its lack of wide acceptance."
To think that behavioural science as a category of science is not widely known amounts to ignorance. Just check for yourselg the number of pages that links to the page Behavioural sciences by going to the link What links here of that article. There are more than 25 pages linking to it by the most conservative estimate.
Secondly Samuel J. Howard wrote "Doing some more research, it appears .......is as a rough synonym with "cognitive science"."
Categories of science are determined by Scientists and philosophers who spend an entire life time researching the topics under their work. It is not a civil thing to write away what scientists and researchers have done, after just some short span of google searching.
Prominent researchers-philosophers described the categories of sciences in the classic book "Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science" edited by E.D. KLemke; Robert Hollinger; & A. David Klein (1980). In it they categorized the disciplines Not in the way it is listed in the page List of academic disciplines. They categorized sciences as Pure sciences or Formal sciences which includes mathematics and logic, Empirical sciences which include Natural sciences and Behavioural sciences, then social sciences and then Applied sciences which includes technology and engineering sciences.
In it they mentioned that natural sciences includes Physics and Chemistry, Behavioural sciences include Biology and Psychology and Social sciences include Sociology and Economics. (page 11)
If people begin to categorize without refering to Journals and delete section because THEY did not know about it, then all the criticisms against the wikipedia by other encyclopedias stand JUSTIFIED.
The page behavioral science was redirected erroneously by someone for over 2 years to the page behaviourism (which is a movement within psychology) and not a category of science.
I wrote the page to rectify this and wrote the definition of behavioral science as taken by leading journals of behavioural sciences. Even Encyclopædia Britannica has a separate page only for behavioural sciences. The definition provided by me is not mine, but as proposed by the journals of behavioral sciences, since it is the journals and not departments that define disciplines. I also referenced books dealing the Philosophy of sciences that deals with the nature and categories of sciences. Please read the book "Introductory readings in the Philosophy of science" edited by E.D. Klemke, Robert Hollinger and A. David Kline. (1980) Prometheus books, New York. Especially the first paper by E. D. Klemke himself.
E. D. Klemke is the Professor of Philosophy at Iowa State University.
thanks Robin klein 05:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(Addendum: the UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education, which seems like a definitive source to me, has top-level categories for "Social sciences, business and law", "Humanities and Arts", and "Science".) -- Rbellin| Talk 06:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have given references to one Book (sorry it is NOT just a book but a book of readings) meaning a collection of assorted papers that deals with the philosophy of science. So it is the same as giving links to more than 20 journals from where these papers have been collected. Besides citing a book is an academic way of writing, so how can you say I wrote "NOTHING".
Secondly Behavioural science Journals have been edited and published for over 40 years. Rbellin seems to be in perpetual denial of it. So apart from the "book of readings" I have also given reference to various scientific journals and scholarly publications like Behavioral Science (since around 1960), Journal of applied Behavioral science (for over 40 years), and Behavioral and brain sciences. Thousands of scientists publish papers in these journals and accept Behavioural science as a destinct category of science. These journals and Scientist state behavioural sciences as a distinct category of science.
However Rbellin has not managed to give reference to any "book of readings" to support his arguement.
Rbellin stated "And as far as I can see, behavioral science's standing is in no way equivalent to the broad categories of natural science, social science, and humanities. I agree with Samuel J. Howard, and have reverted Robin klein's edit making it a top-level category again."
despite the belief of Rbellin and Samuel J. Howard, Philosophers of science tend to believe otherwise. Of which I have given a volume of collected readings, with papers by several prominent researchers. Is wikipedia to go by the works of these prominent researchers and scientists or by the opinion of Rbellin. Robin klein 06:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I understand the discussion correctly, nobody doubts that behavioral science is an accepted discipline, with journals, professors and so on. The question seems to be if it is a discipline that can be sorted under "(natural) sciences", or if it has the same status as the broad categories of natural science, humanities and social sciences. To me, the sources quoted don't seem to suggest the later one, so I think it would be best to put behavioral science in the science meta-discipline, and do not note it as a "meta-discipline" on it's own. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 07:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: Regarding meta-disciplines or the top-level categories: I'm sure that you will find at least half a dozen different ways to organize them, all equaliy valid and faulty. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 07:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Using the way universities divide disciplines is problematic, as administrative structures are slow to change and sometimes the result of historical accidents such as the merger of two or several institutions. If faculty divisions are anything to go by, Theology would be one of the major categories (one of four, actually). OTOH, some universities have newer and smaller faculties for areas which would neither historically nor normally in contemporary academia be considered top-level categories of their own, such as Pharmacy (which has a faculty of its own in a university near me, as a result of a merger of a once independent school).
Journals, OTOH, have a definite bias towards their own field. There is also a tendency for any researcher in any field to perceive other disciplines as being closer to his or her own area than to others, as those are the parts he/she would be acquainted with, and to mentally create a supercategory adjusted to his/her own place in the academic world. In any case, many disciplines are obviously interdisciplinary, like sociolinguistics.
If anything, I would advocate a relatively conservative approach, perhaps reflecting how most major, mainstream universities (i.e. full universities in the traditional sense of the word, not "universities of technology" or that kind of thing, and not e.g. religious institutions) divided disciplines a decade or two ago, then add an introduction which looks both backwards to the medieval four-faculty system and outwards and forward to new areas which are perhaps in the process of being consolidated to new top-level categories. Unless a considerable number of universities regard Behavioural sciences as a top-level category with its own faculty, it should not be regarded as one in the list. (And in each case, one has to look at the rest of the organization of that particucular institution, to see what other categories are placed on the same level - some universities have faculties at a lower, more specialized level than others.) It may, however, be pointed out in the introduction that some (with attribution) regard Behavioural sciences as a top-level category and that a growing number of institutions are adapting their organization according to that view, provided this is really the case.
BTW, lets get rid of astrology from this list, can we? / u p p l a n d 08:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, behavioral science is NOT a top-level category. ObsidianOrder 06:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I propose deleting astrology, numerology, parapsychology, and anti-psychiatry from this list. None of them is an "academic" field in any reasonable sense of the word, in my opinion. (See prior discussion on " #Astrology and Numerology" above.) Discussion is welcome (agree or disagree); I will hold off a few days before making the change, in case there is any disagreement. -- Rbellin| Talk 00:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It sounds to me that much of the disagreement stems from confusing "academic discipline" and "field of study". If we are talking about academic discipline (as per the title of this entry), then I suggest the list be limited to those disciplines for which there are degree-granting programs in accredited universities. For the United States, such a list is maintained by the National Center for Educational Statistics as the CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs): http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/cip2000/. There are no degree programs in astrology, parapsychology, or numerology. However, you can get a degree in gender studies or aromatherapy (!).
Population genetics is presently situated under
Biological anthropology. However, this discipline is not limited to human studies, as its placement under anthropology might imply. As far as I know, this discipline is a sub-discipline of
Population biology, which itself might be best placed under
Biology
Zoology, which itself might be too narrow if the scope of the discpline is thought to include plants and microorganisms as well.
I'll not be bold and make any changes but await discussion leading to a consensus on the matter.
Regards, Courtland 03:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
There needs to be a splinter article/list of all the fields of study, so that some of the disciplines in this list that do not belong can go into that list instead. I feel it is important to have a place where people could look up the fields of study.
To start off such a list, would it be a good idea to just create a carbon-copy of this existing list, and add on more fields of studies? This is assuming that every single academic discipline listed here are also fields of study, but that some fields of studies are not academic disciplines, thus, those do not belong on this list but on that new one -- at least, that is the way I look at it.
But if that is the case, it may be wise to simply combine fields of studie & academic disciplines on this list, and add an asterisk (*) to the fields of studies. In that case, this list will probably need to be renamed something like, "List of academic disciplines and fields of studies". This is assuming that there are not too many fields of studies to add to the list in the first place; but if there are, it may be easier to just create a whole new list on a new page.
As an aside, I could think of a few academic disciplines or at least fields of studies that are missing from this article (whether they belong or not is debatable): physical education (P.E.), health/nutrition, communications media (this is an umbrella term for all the disciplines that have to do with it), astrobiology, communication studies, radio, video-editing, computer graphics/CGI, game production, game design, creative writing, screenwriting, graphic design, and a whole lot more. I'm not exactly sure what qualifies as an academic discipline, but the subjects I've listed have all been focused on in college courses.
Queer studies and women's studies seem like they should go in their own, "cross-discipline" section, along with disability studies, which isn't on the list anywhere. -- Jacqui M Schedler 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Nexus Seven just moved this article to List of fields of study from List of academic disciplines. While I don't feel strongly about it, I think there ought to be some discussion of whether this is the right idea. The rationale given in the edit comment, that one title is "more common" and "less esoteric" than the other, seems a bit silly to me, as nothing is particularly obscure about either title. Further, I am concerned that there may be many non-academic things that people will want to add to a list of "fields of study" -- and this may broaden the list's exclusion criteria to the point that it's unmaintainable. We've already had trouble with POV-pushing under the previous name, and this one seems even more open to misinterpretation. -- Rbellin| Talk 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As a compromise, I've added the word "Formal" to the title. By having "fields of study" in the title, we can still refer to it with shortened versions of the page name from menus and nav bars. I've also linkified "Formal" in one of the lead paragraphs to its wiktionary definition. Nexus Seven, aka -- The Transhumanist 09:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is urban planning design? I'd say it is a combination of social geography, economics, transportation sciences and politics. NOT design. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.116.15.128 ( talk • contribs) .
Shouldn't this be a distinct discipline? At the U.S. Universities I am aware of it always has a separate department. In smaller schools there may be a statistician in the mathematics department but you might also find computer scientists there. The great majority of those that consider themselves statisticians have a PhD in statistics, not mathematics. RedHouse18
The list would require less scrolling and would be easier to read if each section were to be formatted like this, using formatting code to make all the columns in each section line up:
It's a big task, so it'll go much quicker/easier if a team of people take this on. -- The Transhumanist 05:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of black holes...I didn't know they constituted an academic discipline. What do you call them? A Black-Hole-ologist? Eridani 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Scientific adjectives is a sub-project of the WikiProject Conceptual Jungle, aiming at making an overview in a table of scientific adjectives and the various branches of (the) science(s) and qualify them by discussing them, improving the Wikipedia articles and make clear the interlinkages. Please feel free to add your contributions to the table. Best regards, Brz7 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the reasoning for listing Gender Studies with "Arts/Humanities" rather than with "Social Sciences" ? M. Frederick 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely Modern Languages should be in there somewhere? It's distinct from linguistics, though could fall under that category, and has very little to do with cultural studies of the target country. Where should it go, do people think? - Catherine
This is a list of encyclopedic topics, and therefore belongs in the main namespace. I object to moving it out of article space. Please keep it there, where lists like this belong. Thank you. The Transhumanist 04:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
hey let´s keep folklore, culture studies, gender studies, classics, etc. in the humanities sector please¡ --unsigned comment from 148.240.27.44
My basic philosophy to editing this page is as follows:
Firstly, this page should present a coherent and elegant overview of the world of academia.
Secondly, a user visiting this page should be able to quickly locate a subject (discipline). (In fact, by using the Browser "find" function to find a word or a phrase in the page, the user would quickly locate his/her subject, no matter how we group the subjects.)
_________________
In my view, an elegant grouping should result in a lean tree, that is, each node of the tree should have as few descendants as possible. This reduces the number of partitions (into sub-disciplines) of a discipline (represented at the node), and is more appealing and memorable. I would therefore prefer not to clutter up the first level (the level of "Natural Scieces", etc) and the second level (the level of "Languages and Linguistics", etc) of the grouping unnecessarily.
Advocates of a subject might want it placed at the first or second level for apparent higher prestige. This would result in a cluttered first or second level, and should be avoided if possible. My view is that the level of placement of a subject is no reflection of its prestige or importance. It is merely a taxonomic accident, based on the affinity among the subjects. No slight should be read into the level of a subject's placement.
At the third level, the categorization at present is very haphazard and ugly. However, the user can quickly scan the subjects listed there, and find what s/he needs. Perhaps the quality of grouping there is immaterial. However, for my own intellectual satisfaction, I would like to see well-organised grouping throughout all levels.
Next, a word about multi-disciplinary subjects. I think they should be placed into the broad first or second level categories that they have the most affinity with. (Of course it is debatable what these categories are.) As much as possible, they should not be multiply listed under different categories. (There are so many subjects that can justifiably be called multi-disciplinary that if each is multiply listed, we would get an overwhelmingly long and messy page.)
Nothing earth-shattering is at stake here, in my view. As long as the user who visits here can find her/his subject, we have done well.
Having explained my approach, these are my views on individual subjects raised by 148.240.27.44.
Classics has equal affinity with both Languages and Literature. It is currently in both {Arts:Literature:World Literature} and {Humanities:Languages and Lingustics}.
Cultural Studies is in {Social Sciences:Sociology}, with which it has the most affinity, in my view.
Gender Studies has a wide scope, and falls under both Humanities and Social Sciences. It is currently in {Social Sciences}. It can be moved to {Humanities}, on equally good ground.
Folklore has affinity with Anthropology, Religion and Literature. It is now in {Social Sciences: Anthropology} and {Humanities:Religion}. It may be moved to {Arts:Literature} on good ground too.
Palaeovia 08:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 |
Isn't Computer Animation an Academic Discipline? -reallycoolguy
Nice start, but maybe we should have links to the list of biology topics style pages?
Already done. See Lists of articles by category. GUllman 19:58 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
John Nash spent a year applying his mathematical training to some extremely complicated, and logical, numerology. He felt he was conducting mathematics (as do most numerologists) and the POV that numerology is not mathematics should not be considered absolute truth. I believe Kepler, and possibly Newton, were also interested in numerology as a mathematical science. I have agreed to place astrology under amateur astronomy since its probably fair to say that most astrologists are not "professional" astronomers. Pizza Puzzle
A tough situation on numerology: Most numerologists consider themselves to be conducting mathematics (so it is claimed above -- I dunno myself), whereas the vast majority of professional mathematicians consider numerologists not to be conducting mathematics. So who gets to decide the relationship? No matter how cool Kepler and Newton were, I don't think their views are very relevant here; they simply had some views that are now out of date. [I am a mathematician. I think that numerology is not mathematics.]
Since this is about organizing categories by academic discipline, it seems useful to ask: In which academic department do you find Numerology? Unfortunately for the whole idea of organizing Wikipedia topics by academic discipline, the answer is probably that no academic department includes numerology.
It is possible that Pizza Puzzle and John Nash have some different idea of what numerology is than I do. I tend to agree with the Wikipedia article on numerology, which seems to make clear that numerology is not a branch of mathematics.
Actually, it is probably true that numerologists conduct mathematics in the process of conducting numerology, and some of it may be very interesting mathematics. However, physicists and psychologists and economists (and sometimes historians and painters...) also conduct very interesting mathematics in pursuit of their disciplines. But these are not subdisciplines of mathematics.
I'd like to arrange the academic disciplines grouped by "meta-disciplines", but I don't know how controversial that move is. A proposed arrangement could be:
Comments, anyone? -- till we *) 14:35, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
It is an interesting thing, but perhaps one having no bearing on the potential contents of this page, that Harvard has a department of Visual and Environmental Studies, which encompassses, largely, what other schools would call an Art department. -- Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't Zoology be under Biology? -- Steinsky 15:33, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Tillwe's proposed breakdown looks kind of weird to me. It omits the humanities completely, and gives several "hard science" subgroups, Philosophy, and "language study" top-level positions, which is uncommon, at least in US universities. I'd propose something more like:
It's unclear where the cognitive sciences should go -- perhaps psychology and linguistics under social sciences, and neuroscience under biology. There are definitely going to be boundary cases in any event, and different universities slice all of these fields quite differently.
Rbellin 19:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Psychology is definitely not biology. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I don't know how detailed we want to make this list? The stated criteria are 1) recognized discipline, 2) with university courses dedicated to the subject, and 3) academic journals dedicated to the subject. If this is the criteria that we wish to use, then the economics section should include labour economics, econometrics, welfare economics, international economics, economic history, managerial economics, history of economic thought, economic geography, political economy, development economics, spatial economics, environmental economics, health economics, economic anthropology, transport economics, urban economics, and public finance. mydogategodshat 06:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Exactly...why not. Lirath Q. Pynnor
There seems to be some disagreement about Astrology and Numerology. I believe that they do not belong here, because one does not go to college (or university) to get a degree in Astrology or Numerology, which is what the title List of academic disciplines implies. I will be removing them now. — Xoder | ✎ 16:37, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
These are academic fields, it is simply your personal POV that they are not worthy of academic study. Many people do study these rigorously, there are schools one can attend for these purposes. The article at Numerology says "it used to be considered part of mathematics" -- obviously, some people still consider it to be part of mathematics. Lirath Q. Pynnor
There is no such thing as "accredited" numerology, that doesn't mean people don't study it. Even if it weren't studied, you should know from history that it used to be studied very rigorously (as mathematics); thus, it should be listed here. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Even if you were right, there would be no harm in listing them here. However, there are academies of numerology -- such as those found at [1]. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Samuel J. Howard commented on the removal of "Letters" from the section header "Humanities and Arts and Letters." My feeling is that "Letters" is redundant, since literature, philosophy, and the classics are the implication of "letters" in the sense given by the OED (II.6.b): "the profession of literature, authorship. man of letters [= F. homme de lettres]: a man of learning, a scholar; now usually, a man of the literary profession, an author." However, "Arts," designating the creative arts, is not redundant, since these aren't usually considered part of the humanities. Thoughts? -- Rbellin 15:44, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we could go with "
Humanities and
Fine Arts", since
Arts is redundent with
Humanities, see the article
Arts. I would however like to keep Fine Arts in the same section as the rest of the humanities, as otherwise music will have to be seperated into it's fine art and humanities sections which would be pain.--
Samuel J. Howard 16:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm also wondering about the whole area, cultural etc. studies area, but I don't have my thoughts straight yet.-- Samuel J. Howard 16:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For the technology segment I added would be approiate for this page. Send a comment to my user page whether it is or not. Heegoop, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(Excised)
I think these are redundant with other areas in the listing.... thoughts?-- Samuel J. Howard 03:02, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
This edit introduced " Behavioural sciences" as a new top-level category. I have reverted it for now, as it seems like a drastic reorganization and I would like to hear other editors' opinions on a change of this scope. Putting "behavioral science" on a par with the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences as a fundamental category of academic inquiry does not square with my impression of common practice at the majority of the institutions I know of. Granted, cognitive science, linguistics, and psychology et al. are on the rise across academia right now, but most institutions (apart from Hampshire College) have not granted them this fundamental a status. -- Rbellin| Talk 05:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rbellion,
You reverted the section on behavioural sciences as you felt that it was a "promotion of behavioural sciences". I do not know how putting subjects under a certain section could be promoting a nomenclature.
secondly, you wrote- to quote certain sections. "Putting "behavioral science" on a par with the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.... does not square with my impression of common practice at the majority of the institutions I know of.... but most institutions (apart from Hampshire College) have not granted them this fundamental a status."
I would like to tell you that most of the major universities around the world have been publishing and contributing to peer reviewed academic journals under the FUNDAMENTAL STATUS of "behavioural sciences" eg: scientific journals and scholarly publications like Behavioral Science (since around 1960, Journal of applied Behavioral science (for over 40 years), and Behavioral and brain sciences.
Besides Stanford University has a centre named as Centre for advanced study in the behavioral sciences and Heidelberg University in germany has what is called as Faculty of behavioral sciences and empirical cultural studies.
Behavioural sciences is a term used in most encyclopedias and journals. The term is not academic boosterism or promotion of any disciplines. (I don't understand what promotion means in this context). Robin klein 08:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rbellion,
Yes indeed wikipedia has had an article on behavioral science for only 2 weeks and that has been written/edited by me. the reason is not because I wrote it for the first time, but rather the page behavioral science was redirected erroneously by someone for over 2 years to the page behaviourism (which is a movement within psychology) and not a category of science.
I wrote the page to rectify this and wrote the definition of behavioral science as taken by leading journals of behavioural sciences. Even Encyclopædia Britannica has a separate page only for behavioural sciences. The definition provided by me is not mine, but as proposed by the journals of behavioral sciences, since it is the journals and not departments that define disciplines.
secondly, according to APA ( American Psychological Association) and other organizations of scientific researchers, academic disciplines are not dictated or categorized by administrative structure of departments. Instead, according to these scientific organizations new academic disciplines are first brought to the fore by newer classification or introduction of newer category or terminology in recent research papers, and the introduction of new journals in order to foster research in new dimensions. eg: the journal Cognitive Science began publication much earlier than most universities began giving cognitive science or cognitive science as a course. so the method of following university department administrative structure to classify disciplines or sciences is not accurate. Instead to follow the advice of scientific publications like nature, science, and the organizations like APA, one should follow the disciplines as categorized by up-to date journals that publish new research. Academic department structure follow the categories published by journals and not the other way round.
When one is listing academic disciplines it should therefore be based on academic classifications as constantly revised by recent or latest categories as published by leading scientific journals. It is precisely for these reasons that universities first set up centres for new categories and disciplines before setting up new administrative departments. eg: Stanford University centre for advanced study in the behavioral sciences.
you asked me, "What, in your view, makes behavioral science special enough to warrant a top-level place in the hierarchy of this list, if that's not boosterism?"
well it is not my thought but that of scientific journals like Nature, Science and other research organizations that publishes recent research that behavioural sciences are SPECIAL enough to warrant a separate level of classification, which I guess in your point of view (POV) is called as top-level place in hierarchy. I guess when established PEER-REVIEWED scientific journals consider it worthy to classify the Behavioural sciences as distinct of separate categorization then it is not a case of academic boosterism. though it could probably hurt individual point of view, of course. Robin klein 03:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As you say, Behavoiral Science is considered a seperate category of science in the latest journals. Hence it goes under science!-- Samuel J. Howard 04:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Doing some more research, it appears that there are several common uses of the term "behavioral science" in English, one is a collation of education, psychology, social work, and such (see for instance the California Board of Behavioral Sciences), another is as a rough synonym with "cognitive science". The kind of thing reflected in the wikipedia article Behavioral science doesn't seem to follow the "principle of least surprise" and may approach "original research" in its lack of wide acceptance.-- Samuel J. Howard 04:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Samuel J. Howard Stated "The kind of thing reflected in the wikipedia article Behavioral science .....in its lack of wide acceptance."
To think that behavioural science as a category of science is not widely known amounts to ignorance. Just check for yourselg the number of pages that links to the page Behavioural sciences by going to the link What links here of that article. There are more than 25 pages linking to it by the most conservative estimate.
Secondly Samuel J. Howard wrote "Doing some more research, it appears .......is as a rough synonym with "cognitive science"."
Categories of science are determined by Scientists and philosophers who spend an entire life time researching the topics under their work. It is not a civil thing to write away what scientists and researchers have done, after just some short span of google searching.
Prominent researchers-philosophers described the categories of sciences in the classic book "Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science" edited by E.D. KLemke; Robert Hollinger; & A. David Klein (1980). In it they categorized the disciplines Not in the way it is listed in the page List of academic disciplines. They categorized sciences as Pure sciences or Formal sciences which includes mathematics and logic, Empirical sciences which include Natural sciences and Behavioural sciences, then social sciences and then Applied sciences which includes technology and engineering sciences.
In it they mentioned that natural sciences includes Physics and Chemistry, Behavioural sciences include Biology and Psychology and Social sciences include Sociology and Economics. (page 11)
If people begin to categorize without refering to Journals and delete section because THEY did not know about it, then all the criticisms against the wikipedia by other encyclopedias stand JUSTIFIED.
The page behavioral science was redirected erroneously by someone for over 2 years to the page behaviourism (which is a movement within psychology) and not a category of science.
I wrote the page to rectify this and wrote the definition of behavioral science as taken by leading journals of behavioural sciences. Even Encyclopædia Britannica has a separate page only for behavioural sciences. The definition provided by me is not mine, but as proposed by the journals of behavioral sciences, since it is the journals and not departments that define disciplines. I also referenced books dealing the Philosophy of sciences that deals with the nature and categories of sciences. Please read the book "Introductory readings in the Philosophy of science" edited by E.D. Klemke, Robert Hollinger and A. David Kline. (1980) Prometheus books, New York. Especially the first paper by E. D. Klemke himself.
E. D. Klemke is the Professor of Philosophy at Iowa State University.
thanks Robin klein 05:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(Addendum: the UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education, which seems like a definitive source to me, has top-level categories for "Social sciences, business and law", "Humanities and Arts", and "Science".) -- Rbellin| Talk 06:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have given references to one Book (sorry it is NOT just a book but a book of readings) meaning a collection of assorted papers that deals with the philosophy of science. So it is the same as giving links to more than 20 journals from where these papers have been collected. Besides citing a book is an academic way of writing, so how can you say I wrote "NOTHING".
Secondly Behavioural science Journals have been edited and published for over 40 years. Rbellin seems to be in perpetual denial of it. So apart from the "book of readings" I have also given reference to various scientific journals and scholarly publications like Behavioral Science (since around 1960), Journal of applied Behavioral science (for over 40 years), and Behavioral and brain sciences. Thousands of scientists publish papers in these journals and accept Behavioural science as a destinct category of science. These journals and Scientist state behavioural sciences as a distinct category of science.
However Rbellin has not managed to give reference to any "book of readings" to support his arguement.
Rbellin stated "And as far as I can see, behavioral science's standing is in no way equivalent to the broad categories of natural science, social science, and humanities. I agree with Samuel J. Howard, and have reverted Robin klein's edit making it a top-level category again."
despite the belief of Rbellin and Samuel J. Howard, Philosophers of science tend to believe otherwise. Of which I have given a volume of collected readings, with papers by several prominent researchers. Is wikipedia to go by the works of these prominent researchers and scientists or by the opinion of Rbellin. Robin klein 06:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I understand the discussion correctly, nobody doubts that behavioral science is an accepted discipline, with journals, professors and so on. The question seems to be if it is a discipline that can be sorted under "(natural) sciences", or if it has the same status as the broad categories of natural science, humanities and social sciences. To me, the sources quoted don't seem to suggest the later one, so I think it would be best to put behavioral science in the science meta-discipline, and do not note it as a "meta-discipline" on it's own. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 07:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: Regarding meta-disciplines or the top-level categories: I'm sure that you will find at least half a dozen different ways to organize them, all equaliy valid and faulty. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 07:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Using the way universities divide disciplines is problematic, as administrative structures are slow to change and sometimes the result of historical accidents such as the merger of two or several institutions. If faculty divisions are anything to go by, Theology would be one of the major categories (one of four, actually). OTOH, some universities have newer and smaller faculties for areas which would neither historically nor normally in contemporary academia be considered top-level categories of their own, such as Pharmacy (which has a faculty of its own in a university near me, as a result of a merger of a once independent school).
Journals, OTOH, have a definite bias towards their own field. There is also a tendency for any researcher in any field to perceive other disciplines as being closer to his or her own area than to others, as those are the parts he/she would be acquainted with, and to mentally create a supercategory adjusted to his/her own place in the academic world. In any case, many disciplines are obviously interdisciplinary, like sociolinguistics.
If anything, I would advocate a relatively conservative approach, perhaps reflecting how most major, mainstream universities (i.e. full universities in the traditional sense of the word, not "universities of technology" or that kind of thing, and not e.g. religious institutions) divided disciplines a decade or two ago, then add an introduction which looks both backwards to the medieval four-faculty system and outwards and forward to new areas which are perhaps in the process of being consolidated to new top-level categories. Unless a considerable number of universities regard Behavioural sciences as a top-level category with its own faculty, it should not be regarded as one in the list. (And in each case, one has to look at the rest of the organization of that particucular institution, to see what other categories are placed on the same level - some universities have faculties at a lower, more specialized level than others.) It may, however, be pointed out in the introduction that some (with attribution) regard Behavioural sciences as a top-level category and that a growing number of institutions are adapting their organization according to that view, provided this is really the case.
BTW, lets get rid of astrology from this list, can we? / u p p l a n d 08:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, behavioral science is NOT a top-level category. ObsidianOrder 06:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I propose deleting astrology, numerology, parapsychology, and anti-psychiatry from this list. None of them is an "academic" field in any reasonable sense of the word, in my opinion. (See prior discussion on " #Astrology and Numerology" above.) Discussion is welcome (agree or disagree); I will hold off a few days before making the change, in case there is any disagreement. -- Rbellin| Talk 00:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It sounds to me that much of the disagreement stems from confusing "academic discipline" and "field of study". If we are talking about academic discipline (as per the title of this entry), then I suggest the list be limited to those disciplines for which there are degree-granting programs in accredited universities. For the United States, such a list is maintained by the National Center for Educational Statistics as the CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs): http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/cip2000/. There are no degree programs in astrology, parapsychology, or numerology. However, you can get a degree in gender studies or aromatherapy (!).
Population genetics is presently situated under
Biological anthropology. However, this discipline is not limited to human studies, as its placement under anthropology might imply. As far as I know, this discipline is a sub-discipline of
Population biology, which itself might be best placed under
Biology
Zoology, which itself might be too narrow if the scope of the discpline is thought to include plants and microorganisms as well.
I'll not be bold and make any changes but await discussion leading to a consensus on the matter.
Regards, Courtland 03:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
There needs to be a splinter article/list of all the fields of study, so that some of the disciplines in this list that do not belong can go into that list instead. I feel it is important to have a place where people could look up the fields of study.
To start off such a list, would it be a good idea to just create a carbon-copy of this existing list, and add on more fields of studies? This is assuming that every single academic discipline listed here are also fields of study, but that some fields of studies are not academic disciplines, thus, those do not belong on this list but on that new one -- at least, that is the way I look at it.
But if that is the case, it may be wise to simply combine fields of studie & academic disciplines on this list, and add an asterisk (*) to the fields of studies. In that case, this list will probably need to be renamed something like, "List of academic disciplines and fields of studies". This is assuming that there are not too many fields of studies to add to the list in the first place; but if there are, it may be easier to just create a whole new list on a new page.
As an aside, I could think of a few academic disciplines or at least fields of studies that are missing from this article (whether they belong or not is debatable): physical education (P.E.), health/nutrition, communications media (this is an umbrella term for all the disciplines that have to do with it), astrobiology, communication studies, radio, video-editing, computer graphics/CGI, game production, game design, creative writing, screenwriting, graphic design, and a whole lot more. I'm not exactly sure what qualifies as an academic discipline, but the subjects I've listed have all been focused on in college courses.
Queer studies and women's studies seem like they should go in their own, "cross-discipline" section, along with disability studies, which isn't on the list anywhere. -- Jacqui M Schedler 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Nexus Seven just moved this article to List of fields of study from List of academic disciplines. While I don't feel strongly about it, I think there ought to be some discussion of whether this is the right idea. The rationale given in the edit comment, that one title is "more common" and "less esoteric" than the other, seems a bit silly to me, as nothing is particularly obscure about either title. Further, I am concerned that there may be many non-academic things that people will want to add to a list of "fields of study" -- and this may broaden the list's exclusion criteria to the point that it's unmaintainable. We've already had trouble with POV-pushing under the previous name, and this one seems even more open to misinterpretation. -- Rbellin| Talk 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As a compromise, I've added the word "Formal" to the title. By having "fields of study" in the title, we can still refer to it with shortened versions of the page name from menus and nav bars. I've also linkified "Formal" in one of the lead paragraphs to its wiktionary definition. Nexus Seven, aka -- The Transhumanist 09:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is urban planning design? I'd say it is a combination of social geography, economics, transportation sciences and politics. NOT design. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.116.15.128 ( talk • contribs) .
Shouldn't this be a distinct discipline? At the U.S. Universities I am aware of it always has a separate department. In smaller schools there may be a statistician in the mathematics department but you might also find computer scientists there. The great majority of those that consider themselves statisticians have a PhD in statistics, not mathematics. RedHouse18
The list would require less scrolling and would be easier to read if each section were to be formatted like this, using formatting code to make all the columns in each section line up:
It's a big task, so it'll go much quicker/easier if a team of people take this on. -- The Transhumanist 05:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of black holes...I didn't know they constituted an academic discipline. What do you call them? A Black-Hole-ologist? Eridani 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Scientific adjectives is a sub-project of the WikiProject Conceptual Jungle, aiming at making an overview in a table of scientific adjectives and the various branches of (the) science(s) and qualify them by discussing them, improving the Wikipedia articles and make clear the interlinkages. Please feel free to add your contributions to the table. Best regards, Brz7 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the reasoning for listing Gender Studies with "Arts/Humanities" rather than with "Social Sciences" ? M. Frederick 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely Modern Languages should be in there somewhere? It's distinct from linguistics, though could fall under that category, and has very little to do with cultural studies of the target country. Where should it go, do people think? - Catherine
This is a list of encyclopedic topics, and therefore belongs in the main namespace. I object to moving it out of article space. Please keep it there, where lists like this belong. Thank you. The Transhumanist 04:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
hey let´s keep folklore, culture studies, gender studies, classics, etc. in the humanities sector please¡ --unsigned comment from 148.240.27.44
My basic philosophy to editing this page is as follows:
Firstly, this page should present a coherent and elegant overview of the world of academia.
Secondly, a user visiting this page should be able to quickly locate a subject (discipline). (In fact, by using the Browser "find" function to find a word or a phrase in the page, the user would quickly locate his/her subject, no matter how we group the subjects.)
_________________
In my view, an elegant grouping should result in a lean tree, that is, each node of the tree should have as few descendants as possible. This reduces the number of partitions (into sub-disciplines) of a discipline (represented at the node), and is more appealing and memorable. I would therefore prefer not to clutter up the first level (the level of "Natural Scieces", etc) and the second level (the level of "Languages and Linguistics", etc) of the grouping unnecessarily.
Advocates of a subject might want it placed at the first or second level for apparent higher prestige. This would result in a cluttered first or second level, and should be avoided if possible. My view is that the level of placement of a subject is no reflection of its prestige or importance. It is merely a taxonomic accident, based on the affinity among the subjects. No slight should be read into the level of a subject's placement.
At the third level, the categorization at present is very haphazard and ugly. However, the user can quickly scan the subjects listed there, and find what s/he needs. Perhaps the quality of grouping there is immaterial. However, for my own intellectual satisfaction, I would like to see well-organised grouping throughout all levels.
Next, a word about multi-disciplinary subjects. I think they should be placed into the broad first or second level categories that they have the most affinity with. (Of course it is debatable what these categories are.) As much as possible, they should not be multiply listed under different categories. (There are so many subjects that can justifiably be called multi-disciplinary that if each is multiply listed, we would get an overwhelmingly long and messy page.)
Nothing earth-shattering is at stake here, in my view. As long as the user who visits here can find her/his subject, we have done well.
Having explained my approach, these are my views on individual subjects raised by 148.240.27.44.
Classics has equal affinity with both Languages and Literature. It is currently in both {Arts:Literature:World Literature} and {Humanities:Languages and Lingustics}.
Cultural Studies is in {Social Sciences:Sociology}, with which it has the most affinity, in my view.
Gender Studies has a wide scope, and falls under both Humanities and Social Sciences. It is currently in {Social Sciences}. It can be moved to {Humanities}, on equally good ground.
Folklore has affinity with Anthropology, Religion and Literature. It is now in {Social Sciences: Anthropology} and {Humanities:Religion}. It may be moved to {Arts:Literature} on good ground too.
Palaeovia 08:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)