Talk:List of academic disciplines
|
|
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)
| Contents |
Numerology and mathematics
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cool Kepler and Newton were, I don't think their views are very relevant here; they simply had some views that are now out of date.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.
Meta-Disciplines
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:
- Natural Sciences
- Mathematics and Computer Science
- Applied Sciences, Engineering
- Medicine
- Social Sciences (including Jurisprudence and Economics)
- Philosophy
- Language Studies / Philology and Linguistics
- Interdisciplinary Studies
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:
- Exact Sciences
- Natural Sciences
- Mathematics and Computer Science
- Social Sciences
- Humanities
- Philosophy
- Literature
- History
- Professions
- Medicine
- Law
- Engineering and Applied Sciences
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)
- I agree with most of Rbellin's suggestions, but feel psychology is not a social science and belongs under biology. Chris Jefferies
Psychology is definitely not biology. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Oops, now I am in the position to say that the grouping (applied now to the article) looks unfamilar, at least from the German point of view ;-). Medicine would be sorted not as a profession, but as a natural science, including neurobiology and psychatry, and mathematics (and computer science) wouldn't be counted as natural science (but maybe as science). Can someone else please tell if these scheme is US POVed to them, too? -- till we *) 22:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- till we, I think you're probably right that the current state of the list is US-centric. Let's try to fix it! I think that disciplines ought to be listed twice if they are sometimes housed in different locations in universities, with parenthetical explanations, something like "(considered a natural science in Germany)". This could also be applied to disciplines that are sometimes considered related to each other, and boundary cases like cognitive science. There's no reason that each discipline should only be listed once.
- I had used "Natural and exact sciences" to be inclusive of mathematics and computer science. In US universities, CS is sometimes considered a subdiscipline of math, and sometimes of engineering, and sometimes left on its own; and many US universities call their science schools things like "natural sciences and mathematics". -- Rbellin 23:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Also, unless someone can present evidence to the contrary, I don't think anti-psychiatry or parapsychology ought to be included in this list. I've never heard of an academic department or subfield specializing in either one as a discipline. -- Rbellin 06:23, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What level of detail?
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)
- We are not paper, so why not? Especially, as most of them have wikipedia articles ... -- till we *) 15:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Exactly...why not. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Astrology and Numerology
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)
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
- 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)
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
- 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)
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] (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=numerology+academy&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=). 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)
Technology
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)
- Also, technology is the application of science, or engineering, so electronics is electrical engineering, biotechnology is biomedical engineering, etc.--Samuel J. Howard 03:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Behavioral sciences
This edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_disciplines&diff=11385394&oldid=11385229) 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)
- 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 [2] (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/humsci/departments/index.html), 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)
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 Encyclopędia 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.
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Behavioural sciences category has wide acceptance
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Behavioural_sciences) 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 Encyclopędia 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/) -- 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 (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=26358&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html), 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)
(Addendum: the UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education (http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm), 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)
A try on a conclusion
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)
- 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)
A conservative approach?
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? / Tupsharru 08:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
From RfC
In my opinion, behavioral science is NOT a top-level category. ObsidianOrder 06:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fields for deletion
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)
- Agree, obviously. Any of these things may be objects of study (just like anything else people believe in), but they are not academic disciplines in themselves. Tupsharru 03:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Disagree: they are not academic fields in the current sense, okay. Some of them were academic fields (astrology), others may become one once (parapsychology). I think we have a problem of blurry borders (what about, say, traditional chinsese medicine, what about queer studies?), and we should not leave these fields out, but make it clear that most of the people worldwide don't see them as academic fields. This can be done with the asterix, as it is current practice, or we can add a section at the end of the list. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I am fine with creating a section at the article's end for historical academic fields (a home for things like natural philosophy), though I'm not completely convinced that astrology was once an academic field -- can we find a source for this? I do not think, though, that Wikipedia should try to predict what will be or might be an academic field in the future (as you suggest about parapsychology). Please see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball on WP:NOT. The other examples you give (traditional Chinese medicine, queer studies) are, in my opinion, firmly within the purview of this list, as they are fields of study at many universities; I don't think they are parallel cases to the fields we're discussing at all. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree Please delete them. Robin klein 17:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let's be clear
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 (!).