>>13631128Very hard question to answer because of how complexly interlinked everything is - it depends a lot on what you mean by important too.
You could argue formal > natural > social, if you believe that formal sciences unveil the true nature of reality and that our social existence is a game of charades.
Or you could argue something like natural = social > formal, if you believe that we will never be advanced enough to transcend the afforementioned game and that science should focus on improving or corporeal existence, a sort of tool for utility.
I'm probably more inclined to say the former (formal > natural > social) but I can genuinely see why someone would say the opposite.
