NationStates

None.

I have to admit I did seriously think about electronic engineering and astrophysics, though.

Manahakatouki wrote:

Mosasauria wrote:I see no other people saying marine biologist. This makes me happy.

I sea no porpoise to become one...

It's dolphinitely an odd choice.

Alyekra wrote:

Manahakatouki wrote:
I sea no porpoise to become one...

It's dolphinitely an odd choice.

It's not like there's an urchin need for more of them.

Manahakatouki wrote:

Mosasauria wrote:I see no other people saying marine biologist. This makes me happy.

I sea no porpoise to become one...

Well, the pursuit of it for me has somewhat wavered, but I doubt that my faults in the current would get in the way of navigating myself to success.

Wait, we're talking about natural science, right?

If we're also covering social sciences, then economics is mine.

Medicine or forensics.
...
But what I'd most like to do is double major in criminology and psychology and become Clarice Starling.

Astrolinium wrote:

Alyekra wrote:
It's dolphinitely an odd choice.

It's not like there's an urchin need for more of them.

It actually sounds pretty interesting, though. Let minnow how it goes.

xenogeophysics. that is to say the geology and geophysics of worlds other then this one of our own.

although i'm also partial to regeonal planning, because that is something EVERYONE "does wrong".
the "science" of it, or what "economics" driven priorities calls a "science" of it, is mostly, in its premeditated indifference to the realities of nature, all wrong to.

the problem there of course is getting anyone who thinks there getting something out of refusing to, to give a dam about it. about how the realities of nature interact with our own priorities and how we individually and statistically collectively, wish to be able to get away with living.

human society is such a mess. rocks, no matter how dusty, are so much cleanly simpler. well until you start scraping the nature off the top of the them to serve your human masters.

physics is pure. that is to say, last tainted by human corruption. but its become all about the math, and then trying to come up with plausible real world connotations of how the numbers work.
my head does just fine with thought experiments, until someone comes along and says i have to put numbers with them.

so i never got around to getting into any of the sciences, even though i loved them more then anything. or maybe it was just the accidental art, of the visual simulations.

but xenogeology of some kind, the old prospector and his robotic donkey on some weird word half way accross the galaxy, as far to hell and gone from anything human as its possible to get. now that's the life for me.

I'd like to invent stuff.
That, and I'd like to gene splice and mess with genetics! >:D

Alyekra wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
It's not like there's an urchin need for more of them.

It actually sounds pretty interesting, though. Let minnow how it goes.

I'm shore it'll go whale, I know a few marine biologists who love their jobs.

Robotics and other forms of computer programming have always interested me. In fact, when my parents shut down their computer business, I asked them to keep a bunch of CPUs so I could try and put something together on my own (the DoD picked them up on the cheap). And one of the clubs I'm in (rocketry) has a lot of people who went on to do something in the aerospace industry after graduation.

Nanotechnology and how it could relate to biotechnology. (They share quite a bit IIRC)

Celestial Divinities wrote:

Alyekra wrote:
It actually sounds pretty interesting, though. Let minnow how it goes.

I'm shore it'll go whale, I know a few marine biologists who love their jobs.

But that's turtle speculation.

Alyekra wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
It's not like there's an urchin need for more of them.

It actually sounds pretty interesting, though. Let minnow how it goes.

I saw a bunch of 'em today while I was watching people put the tarpon my roof.
Seriously though, I saw minnows, tarpons(huge ones), snappers, grunts, spadefish, and jacks today. And I could identify them all.

Physicist, Astronomer, Philosopher, Cardiologist...

Its a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong list of things I wanna be. And I only have 5- years left to think about it

Planetary science, heliophysics, or nuclear physics.

I suck at math so chemist and physicist are out of the question, so probably an earth science like zoology or environmental science.

The high tech industries wrote:theologist

A theologist is not a scientist. If anything, they generally directly conflict with scientific progress.

Bearlong wrote:Physicist, Astronomer, Philosopher, Cardiologist...

Its a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong list of things I wanna be. And I only have 5- years left to think about it

More time than I've got.

Theoretical physics.

Though i did get criticized for calling the Higgs Boson the "god particle" while knowing about it for years before the confirmation, I still think I'd be pretty good theoretical physicist.

Codzania wrote:A theologist is not a scientist. If anything, they generally directly conflict with scientific progress.

I agree with the first sentence, but the second is a bit short-sighted really. Which theologians are we speaking of? John Dee who helped bring Euclid to England? Pythagoras, perhaps? The Alexandrians? Do not mistake the contemporary for the absolute.

Firearms design/development.

Things that involve prosthetic limbs or genetics, then i am down.

I mainly want to do things that deal with genetics so that I could try to make artificial stem cells.

or prosthetic limbs to see if man and machine can truly be one.

Of course someone in the field of science has to do the radical thinking, or else how would there be any advancement in humanity?

Alyekra wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:? In Europe, there's some evidence that monotheism led to a belief in divine or natural law, but 1) that same monothesim opposed (and still opposes to some extent) science, and 2) that's hardly a universal statement; not only are there plenty of religious beliefs, many scientists were/are atheist.

I'm not saying that all scientists have to believe in God, but even atheistic scientists assume that certain things (The laws of logic, for instance) will be the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow, and they can not account for that assumption without at least a god.

You might be surprised that scientists have been managing happily for decades, if not centuries, without any such need. Metaphysics has come a long way since Descartes. Logic, as we know it, descends from a bunch of principles that are either accepted as true (identity, A = A) or derived from such principles by reasoning. There's even a long proof that 1 + 1 = 2 by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, such is the state of our ability to reason without reference to the supernatural.

Everything else is -- at least in principle -- tentative. Today's rock-solid observation may be tomorrow's instrument error and misinterpretation. We know that some of our ideas are either wrong (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not work and play well together) or incomplete (a lot of biology, especially at the molecular and ecological scales). We stumble forward regardless.

I wasn't aware philosophy was part of science.