Is there such a thing as a superiority (or kingship) of one of the sciences over one (or several) of the others from some point of view? Considering the more exact sciences mathematics, physics and chemistry, there exist since centuries (or millennia) different claims that one of them were:
- more important (Plato’s and Pythagora’s generally known claim for mathematics/geometry),
- purer (e.g. Kant, mathematics in comparison to all others: https://xkcd.com/435/),
- more fundamental
- The widespread claim for physics in comparison to chemistry,
- Physics may not make a single step without chemistry − Laplace cited in Fischer, E.: Physique méchanique, traduite de l’allemand avec des notes de J. Biot. Bernard, Paris. 1806 (in the introduction),
- more central (chemistry in comparison to physics, textbook: "Chemistry the Central Science"),
- more deeply exploring the secrets of nature (chemistry in comparison to physics; Senebier, J.: Essay sur l’art d’observer et de faire des expériences, tome III, J. Paschoud, Genève. 1802. p. 91),
- less afflicted with circular concepts (physics in comparison with chemistry: Laszlo, P.: Circulation of Concepts. Found. Chem. 1, 225−239 (1999) p. 228. − But on the other hand, Max Jammer (Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Princeton, 2000, S. 167) said that the concept of mass were "shrouded in mystery".),
- the cause of all others (chemistry in comparison to all existing things, according to Tachenius, O.: Antiquissimae hippocraticae medicinae clavis. Roselli, Neapoli (1697), p. 2).
Here my question:
I would like to know whether one of these claims (or perhaps further examples of them) is really sound, and how it would be justified and defended against foreseeable doubts.