@grips @LukeAlmighty @fixpoint i'd say physics takes the cake on that. Or at least ot's as based in reality as chemistry

@dead_man @LukeAlmighty @fixpoint yeah, though it gets really quirky on the subatomic scale
chemists are lucky that they can handwave everything subatomic as physics

@grips
The smallest thing chemists are concerned of are electrons.
Electrons however are very important in chemistry: whatever you're doing you have to consider what electrons are going to do since that is what determines the outcome of a chemical reaction.
@LukeAlmighty @dead_man @fixpoint

@rastinza @LukeAlmighty @dead_man @fixpoint oh, just noticed that you're a chemist. cool!

@grips @fixpoint
Yes, but while math is... math, Physics is understandable observations, engineering is aplied phisics... Chemistry just is... The rules inside chemistry tend to be so specific and ungeneralizable, that I don't even know where I would start learning it.

@LukeAlmighty @fixpoint by making meth

@LukeAlmighty
Math is not based on reality, it is not a science in fact.
Chemistry has a lot of rules and exceptions to those rules.
This is because most of the knowledge in chemistry is empirical, thus you get theories that work for some molecules and not with others.
This is done to simplify the knowledge.
You could for example treat everything through the quantum physics theory, which works quite well all around; however that is extremely complicated and requires a bunch of time and calculations.
Thus we use simpler theories that do not generalise so well but work in specific applications so that will make it easier for a person to predict what's going to happen.

Then again, a lot of research in chemistry is basically "let's try synthesizing this molecule in a bunch of different ways to see which one works best and then hope that it is actually useful"
@grips @fixpoint