A good reminder!

Thanks Metin.

It is an extremely important discipline. Tectonics, earthquakes mineralization, history of our planet as important as physics and chemistry.

Yes, indeed, you are right.

Because geology is not a fundamental science and doesn't study living systems and life processes

Dear Alexandra,

I do not agree with you. It is fundamental science.

Dear @Metin Ozdogan, if we have to divide all sciences into two groups - fundamental and applied sciences - geology will go to the applied sciences, I'm sure. Fundamental sciences develop the theories to understand the phenomena, while the applied sciences apply these theories to develop the methods which can be used to solve the practical tasks. Geology cannot be purely a research discipline to be considered as a fundamental science, and this is the best thing about geology, in my opinion

Dear Alexandra,

In my opinion, geology compiles fundamental and applied sciences together. This is evident from studying historical geology and the origin of earth and the solar system, and types of rocks and their origin, as well as the composition and structure of earth (physical geology) and so on. On the other hand geology could be also classified within the applied sciences as well. Therefore, I do not totally agree with your opinion and classification.

Best regards.

AE

I agree fully with Ashraf Elewa. Why not give the Nobel prize to the science studying our planet earth even if it is not considered a science?!

Ashraf M. T. Elewa It is important to remember that the number of disciplines that Alfred Nobel excluded dwarf the five that he included. The prizes were intended to be his legacy. He picked five that represented the legacy he wanted to leave. Given his concern about the application of his inventions for warfare, the peace prize makes sense. The prize for medicine/psychology would seem to be an extension of that thinking, the saving of lives. The prizes in physics and chemistry would seem to be related to the basis of his career. The prize for literature is the most enigmatic, from my perspective. Besides geology, he might have considered mathematics, music, dance, visual arts, biology, history, philosophy, education, engineering, etc. He picked five and, as you have pointed out, others have created many similar prizes for many different disciplines. What really sets the Nobel Prizes apart is the publicity that they get.

Nobel's will that led to the creation of the prizes was signed in 1895. At that point in history, the balkanization of the the sciences, as we conceive of them today, was certainly underway. And yet, it had not become entrenched and ossified in the way we conceive of it in the 21st century.

Alexandra Roslin While I understand that the imagery of a theoretical physicist scribbling equations on a blackboard, or in a notebook, all day may shape your "fundamental" notion for physics (I think more people would substitute theoretical for fundamental, but I may be missing the distinction that you intend), I am more at a loss to understand the distinction you might make between chemistry and geology. Both of these disciplines have practitioners that span the range of purely theoretical to purely applied.

Some mathematicians are known to say that mathematics is the only pure science. Another, more diplomatic, way of expressing that thought is to say that mathematics is the language of science.

It is well to remember that categories such as fundamental/theoretical and applied, as well as physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and geology are abstractions of a continuum and the boundaries that we create for these abstractions are arbitrary, as opposed to absolute.

Thanks a lot Matthew for your comprehensive comments; very enlightening!

Dear @Matthew Mabey, the main difference between the fundamental and applied sciences, in my opinion, is the fact that the fundamental sciences reveal the laws which describe nature. These laws are universal and applicable everywhere. If you know how the acoustic waves are propagated, you can describe the earthquake mechanism and predict such a phenomenon. All applied sciences use the laws developed by the fundamental sciences and wouldn't exist without physics or chemistry. In turn, physics may exist without earth sciences, material sciences or engineering. Is geology an important natural science? Yes. Is it a fundamental science? No. If you think it is, please give me an example of the purely geological theory, which will be applicable everywhere (and it shouldn't be a special case of any physical or chemical law applied to the rock mass)

Alexandra Roslin I would simply add that "physics" is what governs "chemistry." All the "laws" of chemistry have their roots in what gets called "physics." The chemistry application was often first described, but as our understanding has deepened, we now see how they are based upon more fundamental "physics."

As an example, I would say that the principle of isostasy, which is admittedly built on laws of "physics," Is just as universal and applicable everywhere in the universe as something like one of Dalton's laws, Proust's Law, Gay-Lussac’s Law, or Boyle's Law. Is Brownian motion chemistry or physics? It is named after a botanist.

Lavoisier’s Law illustrates well what I mean about the "laws" of chemistry having their roots in physics. This principle of the Lavoisier's conservation of mass is a limited case of the more fundamental "physics" principle that we now refer to as the conservation of mass-energy.

The proliferation of "laws" occurred as practitioners of the scientific method were peeling back the layers of the onion. As various practitioners dabbled with diverse phenomena, "laws" were arbitrarily lumped into the emerging disciplines such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc.

One could argue that the current placing of the most fundamental laws of nature under the "physics" umbrella is a little unfair. Early practitioners of what we now consider "physics" tended to be dealing with macroscopic observations, just as were the earliest chemists, astronomers, and geologists. The fact that things at the sub-atomic level were put under the umbrella of "physics" was, and is, arbitrary. Objects are physics, molecules are chemistry, atoms are both chemistry and physics, and protons are physics. Think about how one might choose to do that differently.

I would assert that the law of gravity (gravitation) is more properly astronomy or geology, because it is in those fields of study that this fundamental law of nature is most apparent and readily studied. Isaac Newton was contemplating Earth and celestial objects when he formulated his law of gravity. That sounds like astronomy and geology, right?

The disciplines of science, and the names that we apply to them, are arbitrary. Useful, for we human creatures, but arbitrary.

Your feedback is very thoughtful, Matthew. Thanks so much.

There is no valid reason why Geology should be omitted from the list of Nobel Prizes. It is every bit as much a science as chemistry, physics or biology. The problem is that what they term the pure sciences are not so pure as made out. There is much selfish pride, envy and battening down the hatches when field sciences appear on the curriculum. We geoscientists in Scotland found that in the Senior School, Geology was side-lined due to a blinkered view of that upstart science - Geology. The numbers opting for geology higher were consistently suppressed by school managements in favour of the ‘pure sciences’. In fact Geology taught practical chemistry, practical physics, life sciences and maths often to a degree that exceeded the traditional subjects.

So what is that to do with the Nobel Prizes? Scientists are a very mixed bunch - some are very modes, others inordinately proud. The trouble is that pride often gains the research funding and ultimately the Nobel Prize. Some have thoroughly deserved their Nobel Prize; but others have not! The inventor of the very first MRI scanner to be used for full body scanning was James M S Hutchison. Yet his name is barely known, not so the Prof. who sneered at him for imaging a mouse! The sneerer was awarded the Nobel Prize. But James was far too modest and self-effacing to concern himself about Nobel Prizes. He was awarded 2 Royal Society Gold Medals for his work on MRI scanning and they meant more to him than Nobel Prizes.

The same would be true if geology was inserted along with the ‘pure sciences’. Better to be recognised by one’s peers than by some committee in Stockholm.

kind regards Ashraf

Thanks George, your comments are very enlightening and thoughtful.

@ Matthew Mabey, you should read Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica to understand how Newton developed the law of gravity. Just to give you the idea - he formulated some fundamental terms like mass and force, postulated absolute space and time and then, based on these explicitly defined terms, he formulated his laws of motion. Then, using his method Newton developed the law of gravity (law of universal gravitation). And in addition to the empirical observations of the motion of the celestial bodies, Newton used pendulums for his experiments. Doesn't sound like geology at all.

However, if the law of gravity sounds like geology, the quantum theory of gravity is still waiting for a brave geologist who will be able to solve this problem. The Noble Prize is guaranteed.

Alexandra Roslin "...not that I would advise any one to the previous study of every Proposition of those Books; for they abound with such as might cost too much time, even to readers of good mathematical learning. It is enough if one carefully reads the Definitions, the Laws of Motion, and the first three Sections of the first Book. He may then pass on to this Book, and consult such of the remaining Propositions of the first two Books, as the references in this, and his occasions, shall require." (From the introduction to Book III, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

This is how I have approached Principia over the years. Perhaps one day I will do a cover-to-cover read. Currently, I don't see it as describing his process for arriving at his insights and understanding. I read it as a carefully organized presentation of what was learned through a much more messy process. I think this is why some translations of Principia include a biography of Newton.

I would assert that Newton's discussion of geometry versus mechanics in his preface relates to our current discussion of fundamental versus applied. However, I suspect that we may land at two different interpretations of what Newton was trying to say about geometry and mechanics.

As to me advancing our understanding of gravitation, even if I were to publish something this year, I would likely die before the Nobel selection committee could get to my work (:>). They are running a little behind. For example, Roger Penrose received the 2020 physics prize for work first published in 1965.

I'm afraid that I already had my brief moment of fame in 1993 when my mother got to see me on TV news several states away. I didn't have to do anything wrong to achieve it, just a public servant sharing information about an earthquake.

Excellent discussion, enjoyable.

@Matthew Mabey, what I wanted to say, Newton first determined "the coordinate system" and then developed the laws. In my opinion, that's the purpose of all fundamental sciences, determine the coordinate systems for the applied sciences. And as a geologist, I don't think that it's critical that geology is not included into the Nobel prize's disciplines. I think that there are reasons for that

Here is a link to the full text of Alfred Nobel's will:

https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-nobels-will-2/

One aspect that stands out to me is the following:

"...the interest on which is to be distributed annually as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind."

I wonder if the committees involved in selecting the recipients are concerned that they have drifted so far from the spirit of "during the preceding year?"

Thanks Matthew for the link.

I like the comment from @ George J Strachan about geology encompassing practical chemistry and science, life sciences and mathematics. I am 79 years old and my life's interest has been Vredefort Meteorite Structure, the Bushveld Complex and the Great Dyke in Zimbabwe. My article on this and my suggestion that geologists have made a basic error in the dating has required all of the above and a good knowledge of physics, time, astronomy, mass extinctions, mantle plumes, sedimentology and stratigraphy, continental drift and metallurgy.

Large numbers of people are being ruined by the work of geologists (environmental pollution and earthquakes). Geologists believe in demonstrably incorrect theories, such as that kilometers-thick layers of salt were formed by evaporation. Look in the mirror and recognize that the Nobel Prize belongs to nobler sciences.

This discussion is open and no restrictions at all. Everyone can write his own opinion. However, none could ignore that geology is principal in exploring economic ores and minerals.

Geology is geoscience and if you are a total scientist of today, recognise the growing contribution from that stream on the planet we are living in , & the subject is no more old geology -- it covers all basic science disciplines! Often this subject offers major fields for other disciplines to flourish!