> On Dec 6, 2016, at 11:12 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > How come you say chemists have a "more practical field"??? This I find an > amusing note. > > Is there a rationale behind this note, or is it just a flippant one which > cannot be given any grounds for?
Chemists tend to be grounded more with experiment whereas theoretical physicists often are unencumbered by empirical data. The whole focus on not only grand unified theories but all sorts of odd theoretical largely mathematical constructs is common. There’s a big divide in physics between those of a more empirical bent doing experiment and those of a more mathematical or abstract bent doing theory. Not that people don’t have feet in both areas at times - I certainly did back in my physics days. But it seems quite different culturally from my friends who are chemists even in academia. Admittedly there are hybrid disciplines like material science which is often physics but still more tied to engineering or chemistry in mindset. But the way physicists are acculturated seems quite different from chemists, geologists or the like.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
