Well, at some point in every college education, you're forced to choose a science to study. And as we all know, it is our choices that show what we truly are. *smiles*
Science is very connected to the world . . . Math is the only subject that I loathe. Disconnected abstractions are just....
They're just . . . lovely! Fun! Flexing your mind, because the more abstract the better! You can play with them, spinning out the logic and taking them much, much further down the road of "if . . .then"!
The earth and life sciences, being anchored in the physical world, are also thereby limited to the physical world (and what we can discover about that). You could actually come to the end of them, I suppose, if you studied them long enough.
Naturally, I never had any more to do with them than I was forced to. When my time of science-decision came, I chose physics and then astrophysics. For the final exam in astrophysics, we had to calculate the orbit of a comet, a satisfyingly abstract approach to apprehending something that did in fact exist in nature.
As a distant second choice for sciences, I also chose to take chemistry. It does study the natural world, but on such a molecular level that it's comfortingly abstract and susceptible to logic.
I took macroeconomics. I doubt you'd find the social element to be prominent enough to be comforting: honestly, it's all a logic game. Loved it.
*snorts*
You know, between the two of us, we possess about one complete intellect. Languages seem to be our only common intellectual interest. (I noticed that you've never mentioned history, and wondered whether you were simply being polite)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-12-15 11:00 am (UTC)Science is very connected to the world . . . Math is the only subject that I loathe. Disconnected abstractions are just....
They're just . . . lovely! Fun! Flexing your mind, because the more abstract the better! You can play with them, spinning out the logic and taking them much, much further down the road of "if . . .then"!
The earth and life sciences, being anchored in the physical world, are also thereby limited to the physical world (and what we can discover about that). You could actually come to the end of them, I suppose, if you studied them long enough.
Naturally, I never had any more to do with them than I was forced to. When my time of science-decision came, I chose physics and then astrophysics. For the final exam in astrophysics, we had to calculate the orbit of a comet, a satisfyingly abstract approach to apprehending something that did in fact exist in nature.
As a distant second choice for sciences, I also chose to take chemistry. It does study the natural world, but on such a molecular level that it's comfortingly abstract and susceptible to logic.
I took macroeconomics. I doubt you'd find the social element to be prominent enough to be comforting: honestly, it's all a logic game. Loved it.
*snorts*
You know, between the two of us, we possess about one complete intellect. Languages seem to be our only common intellectual interest. (I noticed that you've never mentioned history, and wondered whether you were simply being polite)