/sci/ - Science & Math

Physics for dummies maybe?

Otherwise, there are a number of A very short introduction to ... that deal with fysics.

>>4617770
IQ/g follows a Gaussian distribution. What are u on about?

>>4617747
IQ is not measured like that anymore. If u want to criticize psychometrics, at least know a bit about it.

>>4617728
>Copying and pasting the shitty article won't make a difference. Feynman took the test and got that score. Any other interpretations are within the realm of speculation, which is okay as long as you acknowledge that.

Not all 'speculation' is alike. The article states many reasons to doubt that Feynman's g was 125 (which is the relevant claim anyway, not about IQ). It almost certainly was not. The evidence is rather conclusive about that. What his g exactly was, it is not so easy to know. One can make reasonable estimates.

>>4617701
U give the impression of not understanding probabilities and weighing the evidence.

>Feynman was universally regarded as one of the fastest thinking and most creative theorists in his generation.

>Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test.

>He also reportedly had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton.

Obviously, he did well at nonverbal tasks. So, if the 125 score is legit, it was either a bogus test or a verbal one. If it is legit and verbal, then he seems to have a large difference between his verbal skills and nonverbal skills. This is in fact quite common for physicists, but even more so for mathematicians.

No, it is not just speculation. It is weighing the evidence and choosing the most reasonable option from the available evidence.

>>4617699
>But honestly, it's kind of hard to give a fuck about school when your best friends are retards who think telling the cashier at McDonalds they got your order wrong is a great way to get free food.

U don't think the solution is to change begin changing ur friend network? Attending university helps with that. It is also possible to find brilliant people to talk with online. My favorite filosofer is still alive and i talk with him over email from time to time.

>Or when you try to tell people about the theory of relativity in 6th grade, and everyone stares at you like you're retarded.

I recall being bullied in school becus i denied the existence of chance (i.e., i was a determinist). They others didn't understand that. (Just a related personal anecdote.)

>>4617693
If u wud actually read the article, u wud see that he mentions many things that are extremely unlikely to be achieved by someone merely at the 95th percentile.

>>4617690
No thanks.

It does. Tall buildings like the Empire State Building are struck by lightning many times a year.

>>4617049
>Women on the other hand do have varying preferences.

Don't think so. The attractiveness of men is similar to the attractiveness of women. It is a human universal and pretty much all humans agree what is attractive and what is not. No surprise. If it was completely relative like the popular idiom frase 'claims', that wud be extraordinary, evolutionary speaking. It is obviously not the case. Humans are similar to the other mammals in mate selection.

>>4617001
>Your link is broken. Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder means that everyone has their own idea of what is beautiful. What one man might find really hot, another man might find really ugly. You don't think that's true?

That is not what it means. It means that beauty is entirely relative. But it isn't. Humans across all cultures agree in broad strokes what is beautiful and what is not. Judgements of beauty is a human
universal.

Link works fine for me, otherwise just google it.

Wikipedia is pretty much the best thing that has happened for enlightenment that last many years. Before that it was the internet. The new thing will be copyright reform or some other technology that makes copyright reform unnecessary for the sharing of any and (almost) all books and papers ever written by humans.

Aristotle thought that the heart was the seat of emotions. And this is probably becus that one when feels love, one feels it in the stomach heart (butterflies and faster beating).

>>4617013
I don't know what u were saying, so i don't know if i was agreeing or not. That is what happens when on uses unclear terms like "perfect knowledge".

>>4616971
U are either wrong or mean something else than people normally mean with that frase.

See this for starters: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-ex
cept-ii-beauty-is-in-the-eye-th

>>4616922
This sounds like ur first time doing epistemology. I can tell becus ur using "logic", "meaningful", "perfect knowledge" the way u are.

Anyway, for the reasons mentioned many places, humans are never absolutely certain about anything, not even their own existence or basic arithmetic truths etc. I do not find this particularly worrisome, but again, as mentioned before, many mathematicians (for instance) think that they cannot possibly be wrong about their theorems etc. History seems to show otherwise. For how many centuries did the try to square the circle?

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. However, since we lack data about every single female on the planet, probably, we don't know who is the most beautiful. Also, are we comparing them only without make-up and clothes? Otherwise it get's much harder due to noise in the data.

Fysicalism does not imply that every brain having the 'same' thought must look identical. However, there has to be something similar with the internal structure, but that has to do with the firing of neurons and their connections etc.

TL;DR (substance) dualism is still a dead theory and has been for hundreds of years.

>>4615857
>I read some of the section on fallibility and justification, and I couldn't roll my eyes hard enough. Of COURSE there's no such thing as perfect justification of a belief. What the hell are philosophers wasting their time on?

Mathematicians often think that their proofs are '100% certain' and 'cannot be wrong' etc. Some people claim the same about they themselves existing (cogito ergo sum) etc.

>>4615825
Yes, i find this rather obvious. Apparently, not so many other people do. Btw, it is called fallibilism.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/

>>4615744
No.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/09/ps-herpes-usa-idUSN0923528620100309

From 2010. 1 in 6.

>>4615800
>Why is chi energy false? It's not a scientific theory and makes no testable predictions, so it can't be proven wrong. It's unfalsifiable.

Falsifiability is a broken concept. It does not work the way many people think it works. Read Quine on confirmation holism.

Chi energy is quite easy to disprove. There are no energy fields in the places where the theory states that there are. And then there is the problem of which theory is correct. They all have the same evidence (none), and they are all inconsistent with each other. Since at most one of them is correct, any randomly chosen one with regards to the evidence is overwhelmingly likely to be false.

Then we can also test the other things that chi theory predicts that acupuncture can treat for, and none of these work, etc. etc. etc. Chi theory is testable and proven false.

>>4615669
U cited her wrongly and misleadingly, she wrote:

>I think this is highly unusual; almost all affairs are initiated by men.

And she is right about that. At least, if by "initiated" we mean, made the first verbal contact. Usually, women do some other things like looking at men that makes them try their luck.

I don't know what you mean by "objective". This word is generally the problem of all these discussions. U need to avoid it. http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/