Talk:Outline of academic disciplines/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: We are not paper, so why not? Especially, as most of them have wikipedia articles ... -- till we *) 15:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What level of detail?

message: 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)
: I agree with this change and also encourage the removal of anti-psychiatry and parapsychology on the same grounds.  They're not academic disciplines, nor do there exist a significant number of departments, programs, or even courses dealing with these subjects; at most, there are extra-academic groups which wish they had institutional approval. -- Rbellin 20:39, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some references to accredited universities or colleges with departments, programs, or courses in these fields, then?  I just did come Google-searching on e.g. "numerology" plus "academic"/"university"/etc. and found only bitter references to academics refusing to acknowledge it as a subject. -- Rbellin 01:31, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: While I would be all for creating a List of non-academic fields of thought, which could include all the subjects which people study outside universities, this page is a List of academic disciplines, which suggests (to me, at least) that only current academic fields should be listed. (Wiktionary gives "academic" as: "Belonging to an academy or other higher institution of learning"; the OED has: "Of or belonging to an academy or institution for higher learning; hence, collegiate, scholarly" or "Of or belonging to a learned society, or association for the promotion of art or science; of or belonging to an Academician.")  Perhaps a List of past academic disciplines or a History of the university could discuss fields which are no longer academically studied.  Or perhaps we could add such a heading to this list, if others would prefer that. -- Rbellin 03:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Astrology and Numerology

message: 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)
replies: text: I do not dispute the existence, nor the importance, of the behavioral sciences.  What I am questioning is making this a fundamental category of this list paralleling natural sciences, humanities, and social sciences.  As far as I am aware this is not a common way of organizing the disciplines.  This list, it seems to me, should conform as far as possible to the common structure of universities in administering the disciplines; that's implicit in its hierarchy, where the first level corresponds to broad administrative units, the second to departments, and the third to subfields within departments.  If you look at the organizational structure of universities, you will almost always find each of the disciplines you list within behavioral science actually is administered in a "school" or administrative "division" of social sciences, humanities, or natural sciences.  There are nearly no exceptions of which I am aware.  To take your example: sure, Stanford has a "center" for behavioral sciences, but if you look at the division of the disciplines into broad categories there , it's humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, just like almost everywhere else.  Each of the disciplines which your reorganization placed under the "behavioral science" heading is administered not as behavioral science, but within one of these three categories, at Stanford.  And this is, to my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of institutions' situation.  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?  (I note that Wikipedia has only had an article on the behavioral sciences for about two weeks, and that User:Robin klein is its sole editor.)  -- Rbellin|Talk 15:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, I didn't dispute that behavioral science is an academic discipline, and I think it's worthy of inclusion in this list as another discipline (under "social sciences" or "natural sciences" or under both).  I disagree only with making it a new top-level category in this list. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Nature and Science, I'd like to point out, are largely hard-science journals; if they classify the behavioral sciences separately it's as a subclass of the sciences which they cover, not as a subclass of academic inquiry as a whole.  That does not imply that the behavioral sciences have reached a status equivalent to that of the natural sciences, social sciences, or humanities in academia as a whole.  Your response is largely not germane to my concern: I'm not saying that behavioral science isn't "SPECIAL," just that it's not one of the widely recognized largest divisions of the academic endeavor.  Following your logic, for instance, why don't the Earth sciences, or Literature, have places at the top level of this list's hierarchy?  I won't revert this again, but I'd be interested in hearing from other contributors on this issue. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Robin klein has written almost nothing -- beyond citing one book on the philosophy of science -- which has any bearing on the central question here: why should we believe behavioral science is one of the few broadest categories of academic inquiry?  As I have said above, the few arguments you've produced on this topic could equally be given for other disciplinary categories, like "literature" or "earth science" or "psychology," rendering the top-level categories of this list smaller and smaller until they dissolve into the disciplines themselves.  It is all very well to say that behavioral science is a field of study. (But there, too, attention will need to be paid to all the alternate uses of this phrase, as Samuel J. Howard indicates and Robin klein too quickly disparages; this issue, though, can be taken up on Talk:Behavioral science.  Also note that the EB entry calls "behavioral science" a rough synonym for "social science," which you seem to disagree with quite strongly).  I find no reason to believe that behavioral science is a generally accepted broad category of inquiry of the same scope as the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities.  I see no reason to agree with Robin klein's assertion about only journals defining disciplines, either; this page is an attempt to codify the typical, commonly accepted structure  of the disciplines, inasmuch as that can be generalized across academia.  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. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Because User:Robin klein has reverted this change several times, I am listing this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the hope of involving more editors.  Again, I see no reason why this list's structure should be derived from journals rather than universities' administrative structures.  Further, I see no evidence that a wide academic consensus exists giving behavioral science equal standing to the broadest categories of academic inquiry. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: User:Robin klein asked me to provide evidence for my perception that the commonly held view of the broadest categories of academic inquiry are natural science, social science, and humanities.  Let's take a random university's web site, to start:  Penn's School of Arts and Sciences -- look at the categories given in the links down the left-hand side of the page, orienting readers of every page on this site.  Next, look at the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification, two of the commonest schemes for organizing all of human knowledge.  None of these gives "behavioral science" a top-level category!  Note also that UNESCO agrees with my perception here, calling the social sciences "one of three main divisions of human knowledge, the other two being the natural sciences and the humanities." These are the liberal arts, historically established since the rise of the university in the Middle Ages; "behavioral science" (or cognitive science) is a recently developed interdisciplinary field, not one of these broadest categories of thought. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the response.  I agree that no set of top-level categories has a claim to greater validity or truth than others.  However, some of them do seem to me to be more widely accepted than others; in particular, note the great similarities between Dewey, LC, and UNESCO's classifications which I cited above.  The UNESCO classification, in particular, seems like a good place to look for a broadly accepted structure for our list.  -- Rbellin|Talk 03:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavioral sciences 

message: 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)
replies: text: Robin klein has written almost nothing -- beyond citing one book on the philosophy of science -- which has any bearing on the central question here: why should we believe behavioral science is one of the few broadest categories of academic inquiry?  As I have said above, the few arguments you've produced on this topic could equally be given for other disciplinary categories, like "literature" or "earth science" or "psychology," rendering the top-level categories of this list smaller and smaller until they dissolve into the disciplines themselves.  It is all very well to say that behavioral science is a field of study. (But there, too, attention will need to be paid to all the alternate uses of this phrase, as Samuel J. Howard indicates and Robin klein too quickly disparages; this issue, though, can be taken up on Talk:Behavioral science.  Also note that the EB entry calls "behavioral science" a rough synonym for "social science," which you seem to disagree with quite strongly).  I find no reason to believe that behavioral science is a generally accepted broad category of inquiry of the same scope as the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities.  I see no reason to agree with Robin klein's assertion about only journals defining disciplines, either; this page is an attempt to codify the typical, commonly accepted structure  of the disciplines, inasmuch as that can be generalized across academia.  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. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Because User:Robin klein has reverted this change several times, I am listing this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the hope of involving more editors.  Again, I see no reason why this list's structure should be derived from journals rather than universities' administrative structures.  Further, I see no evidence that a wide academic consensus exists giving behavioral science equal standing to the broadest categories of academic inquiry. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: User:Robin klein asked me to provide evidence for my perception that the commonly held view of the broadest categories of academic inquiry are natural science, social science, and humanities.  Let's take a random university's web site, to start:  Penn's School of Arts and Sciences -- look at the categories given in the links down the left-hand side of the page, orienting readers of every page on this site.  Next, look at the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification, two of the commonest schemes for organizing all of human knowledge.  None of these gives "behavioral science" a top-level category!  Note also that UNESCO agrees with my perception here, calling the social sciences "one of three main divisions of human knowledge, the other two being the natural sciences and the humanities." These are the liberal arts, historically established since the rise of the university in the Middle Ages; "behavioral science" (or cognitive science) is a recently developed interdisciplinary field, not one of these broadest categories of thought. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Behavioural sciences category has wide acceptance

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the response.  I agree that no set of top-level categories has a claim to greater validity or truth than others.  However, some of them do seem to me to be more widely accepted than others; in particular, note the great similarities between Dewey, LC, and UNESCO's classifications which I cited above.  The UNESCO classification, in particular, seems like a good place to look for a broadly accepted structure for our list.  -- Rbellin|Talk 03:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A try on a conclusion

message: 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)
replies: text: I appreciate the response and agree with nearly all of your suggestions.  I'd suggest one other way to resolve this discussion amicably -- perhaps we should add a list of interdisciplinary fields after the main list, each of which can re-list its component and contributing fields as members.  There is no reason we need to have only one authoritative classification, and this might help stem list bloat.  (Regarding astrology, I agree we should delete it, and please see earlier discussions further up on this page for a few other candidates for deletion; but this has been controversial in the past, so let's discuss it separately before making changes.)   -- Rbellin|Talk 03:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A conservative approach?

message: In my opinion, behavioral science is NOT a top-level category. ObsidianOrder 06:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From RfC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fields for deletion 

message: 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)
*I've always considered, it's the case in the litterature and the wiki article too, that population genetics refers to a population of anything. As far as population biology goes its not a term I hear much, but I think it should go in general biology.--nixie 03:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Genetics and Population Biology 

message: 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.
:Academic disciplines are fields of study.  An asterisk next to official academic disciplines, according to the most official source, whatever that may be, would work fine. --The Transhumanist 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields of Study List 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. This article fails to distinguish between disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity; the fields you've just mentioned are excellent examples of interdisciplinary fields. We really need an NPOV article titled Academic disciplines -- a real article, and not just a redirect to this list. Bryan 23:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree wholeheartedly about the need for an article on academic disciplines and also support appending a list of interdisciplinary fields as a separate section of this list.  I'd just point out, though, that we may not wish to become too narrow in the conception of "discipline" used for inclusion in this list.  For one thing, it's currently a very inclusive list of many cases that are borderline for other reasons, and there are if anything many more boundary cases and potential disputes when we get to the question of what is and what isn't a proper "discipline."  For another, it's currently serving as much a list of fields of study as it is a list of disciplines in a narrow sense.  -- Rbellin|Talk 01:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add my agreement with this point. We need an article on academic disciplines, but there's no reason to strangle this increasingly interesting list with disciplinary rigor mortis.  Bryan 02:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-discipline studies 

message: 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) .
:Because if we put everything under "interdisciplinary topics" it would be very confusing! See also the disclaimer in the lead section: "Fields of study usually have several sub-disciplines or branches, and the distinguishing lines between these are often both arbitrary and ambiguous." --Quiddity 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Urban planning]]

message: 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
:I agree completely. If no one objects in the next few days, I'll promote and expand it. -- Avenue 03:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Statistics]]

message: 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:
===Astronomy===
* Astrobiology
* Astrophysics
** Gravitational astronomy
*** Black holes
** Interstellar medium
** Numerical simulations in
*** Astrophysical plasma
*** Galaxy formation and evolution
*** High-energy astrophysics	
*** Hydrodynamics
*** Magnetohydrodynamics
*** Star formation
** Physical cosmology
** Stellar astrophysics
*** Helioseismology
*** Stellar evolution
*** Stellar nucleosynthesis	
* Observational astronomy
** Gamma ray astronomy
** Infrared astronomy
** Microwave astronomy
** Optical astronomy
** Radio astronomy
** UV astronomy
** X-ray astronomy
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)
replies: text: It can go faster for simple columns with   ...  ...  ...  templates. Two- and four-column versions also might work, depending on item length. You can see an example at Evaluation methods and techniques.  I'll pitch in here and there when I get a chance. Rfrisbietalk 19:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs columnization 

message: * Astrobiology
* Astrophysics
** Gravitational astronomy
*** Black holes
** Interstellar medium
** Numerical simulations in
*** Astrophysical plasma
*** Galaxy formation and evolution
*** High-energy astrophysics	
*** Hydrodynamics
*** Magnetohydrodynamics
*** Star formation
** Physical cosmology
** Stellar astrophysics
*** Helioseismology
*** Stellar evolution
*** Stellar nucleosynthesis	
* Observational astronomy
** Gamma ray astronomy
** Infrared astronomy
** Microwave astronomy
** Optical astronomy
** Radio astronomy
** UV astronomy
** X-ray astronomy
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)
replies: text: It can go faster for simple columns with   ...  ...  ...  templates. Two- and four-column versions also might work, depending on item length. You can see an example at Evaluation methods and techniques.  I'll pitch in here and there when I get a chance. Rfrisbietalk 19:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Astronomy]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Mapping the sciences: scientific adjectives/name of the science(s)

message: What is the reasoning for listing Gender Studies with "Arts/Humanities" rather than with "Social Sciences" ? M. Frederick 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender Studies

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please stop moving this to the Wikipedia namespace