/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4635506
>This has nothing to do with age of consent or puberty being reached. If you want to have sex with minors (i.e. under the age of 18), you are a pedophile and need treatment. Or better you should be put in prison, since you're probably resistant to any form of treatment.

This is a crazy belief. Pedofilia is sexual desires for pre-puberty children. Not this propaganda advocated by "save the children" groups.

"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2][3][4]"

First section on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
Statutory rape laws for pubescent children are nuts (pun intended :D), and also damaging. Age differences between sexual partners around that age is quite normal. Females mature faster than males, so one wud expect to see females go for older males based solely on that (which they also do).

I'm in favor of this. /lit/ is too shitty for proper filosofy or non-natural science discussions.

>>4635542
Slower boards is a good thing.

>>4633317
Thanks. I had forgotten to read that book. I found an ebook version on torrent. Yay!

http://torrentz.eu/6928c867198ad3f75af1536d324bf52cff207d8e

>>4633833
People who dislike transhumanism, either haven't read much about it, are religious, are anti-science, or some combination of these.

Red cat: YEULBAH
Blue cat: YEULBHH

Red dog: NEULBAHA
Blue dog: ?

Cat is YEUL, red is BAH, blue is BHH, dog is NEUL+A (suffix), so, NEULBHHA.

>>4633601
>>4633609
etc. are correct. (I'm a logician)

Biology is less math heavy i suspect. If it doesn't have to be natural science, there is something like linguistics which isn't generally math based but much of it is still abstract symbol manipulation.

None in itself. However, my hunch is that it is an extreme case of empathy and sexual interest. I suspect those two follows normal distributions. So, there are going to be extreme cases.

Here is an example of something I found that I can find no evolutionary explanation for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formicophilia

>>4631370
That one is rather cool, thanks.

Iraq has a pop of 3e7 million. 3e5 civilian deaths wud be a high death toll (1% of total pop), but possible.

>>4630709
There is a difference between the result of one test and one's general intelligence called "g". A test may or may not measure g more or less well. See also the other things mentioned here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feyn
mans-low-iq-and-finding-another

It is extremely unlike that RF had a g of 125.

The one with the highest intelligence, ofc. Smartness is about that, not other stuff. At least, that's how i have operationalized the word "smart". Since u didn't provide means to judge who is the smartest, i can't really say. Give them each a good IQ test they haven't taken before. The one who comes out on top is probably the smartest one. The chance is smaller the smaller the differences between their scores.

>>4629288
No, it means that we can't be certain about stuff. No surprise there.

Why don't u just read Wikipedia for an intro to the subject? The traditional problem of induction is that inductive inferences as a whole cannot be shown to work by deduction, hence the conclusion that they are unjustified.

I think this is a confused way of looking at it, but that's the standard version of the problem.

The order of the factors do not matter.

p=ab↔p=ba

The number of factors does not matter either, in ur case 3:
p=abc↔p=acb

2: Schrödinger
4: Einstein
10: Turing

I'm not a fysicist.

>>4627884
Thanks. That one is cool.

>>4627864
>>4627873
etc.

Yes it does. Wrong beliefs are sometimes dangerous. This is why we have a moral obligation (so to speak) to consult the evidence properly.

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

>>4627745
For what it is worth, u may be more than 50% white. US blacks average about ~20% white genes due to interbreeding thru time.

>>4627778
It gets much, much worse than that...
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/824-postmodernism-disrobed

>>4627733
Case in point of what i wrote above.

One place where there is still some psychoanalysis around is psychiatry. I read a description of a survey among US psychiatrists. About 20-30% of them used psychoanalysis. So, this means that about the same (if not more) are mental quacks.

No, psychoanalysis is pseudoscience and mainly thrives among pseudointellectuals, typically people that study bad humanities programs (history of literature, English, cultural theory, ...).

>>4627585
But they don't like electrolytes in Idiocracy either. That was an important plot element. So, i don't understand the use of "despite" in that context.

I wrote about this some time ago. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=2816

Here are some good things to read to get rid of misconceptions about various things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconceptions_about_HIV_and_AIDS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_false_etymologies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_English_usage_misconceptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions_about_illegal_drugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_misunderstandings_of_genetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com – www.snopes.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic%27s_dictionary – http://www.skepdic.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Myths-Popular-Psychology-Misconceptions/dp/1405131128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8
&qid=1333843699&sr=8-1

>>4627547
That's interesting.