Quote:
Originally Posted by substitute
Some of the really high level physics stuff can be good, when you go into theory again and nothing can really be proven as such and it becomes philosophy again rather than that dull divide-and-categorize approach of most science. But i'd have to take my hat off to any Ne type that manages to make it that far through the plodding stages to actually get to the interesting part.
|
I think a lot of sciences show the "divide and categorize" face more than the "put things together" phase because a lot of different "small pieces" are needed to be able to put them together and actually get useful results. The sciences that seem to have the big overarching theories at the moment (physics mostly, some chemistry fits this as well), have relatively simple principles, and tend not to have the large amount of interactions that a lot of other sciences do.
(Compare, say, the electricity and magnetism laws, with their simple relationships and small amount of things to keep track of, to the workings of a cell, with huge amounts of types of molecules, interactions between those molecules, stuff flowing in and out, etc. Or compare to weather/climate, which again has a huge amount of interactions going on.)
There are areas (such as turbulence, or the structures of liquids.), where there seem to be plenty of opportunities for people who want to work out an underlying pattern for understanding what is going on.