/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6754227
"I give her the D, therefore I am."

Is a magnetic field constantly flowing?

>>6222872
>>6222927
>Oral exam
>Got a D

Anyone?

If you put an object into vacuum, will it keep its temperature forever?

>>6070094

>>5623409

It is not enough to have a good D. The main thing is to use it well.

-Rene Descartes

>>5516960
Because Isaac Newton's life work pretty much made science stand still for 200 years. Remember history class, and how it was explained that the Victorian era was all about "progress" and mastering the "mechanical universe" proposed by Descartes? ("Cartesian maps" etc.?) Einstein showed the world that the universe wasn't as mechanical as we'd assumed up to that point. He proved it too.

"Pure mathematics is physics without thought. Chemistry is physics without purpose." - Anon

Of all the perversions of Descartes, that is probably the worst.

>>5306506
>4 is a girl who used to like me

>>5138264

i'd put you in a woman's cave, with a box of socks

If you're an atheist, you must admit that you can't truly trust anything by empirical means, or rationalise any objective "truths" about the nature of the universe -- after all, you may be dreaming or hallucinating. Since, as an atheist, you can't truly rationalise anything regarding the true nature of the universe, it would be illogical for you to make an argument against God, since you would be asserting possession of objective knowledge, which -- without a God -- is impossible to have.

What do you think of this argument? Someone made it against me the other day, and -- besides seeming shallow -- it seemed to throw me into a logical pit that I found it hard to get out of. I refuted by saying that the person posing this argument was using logic to construct his argument for God and absolute knowledge, yet he was using God to prove the validity of his logic; obvious Cartesian circle is obvious. However, it still made me think -- are we really contradicting ourselves when we form any opinion about the existence of God? I seriously doubt it, but my thoughts are in scatters and I can't think of a clear answer to why.

>>4476995
Scrubs

Just curious: Does /sci/ think the mind is material or immaterial?

here are two foundational beliefs that individuals take when it comes to economic/social policy.

A business man uses his wit and ingenuity establishes a business, and by free trade grows his wealth. Every exchange is voluntary, with a few small exemptions there is nothing inherently wrong with obtaining wealth in this fashion.

The other uses government coercion to obtain another wealth in the sake of fairness.

Tell me, which one is the more moral system?

Your problem with /sci/ is that most economic theory SEEMS intuitive, but isn't the case. You can't scrap the scientific process when you hit social policy.

>>2940585
I concur
I am the only actual consciousness

>>2855741
O RLY?

We have souls
I'm right and you're wrong
I laid the foundation for calculus and invented cartesian products bitches
Go on and play with your particle accelerators and shit I don't give a fuck

Why didn't you guys tell me Calculus is so fucking awesome /sci/? I just spent the last 4 hours reading my textbook for fun. And I'm not a huge math fan.

inb4 integration

"I think, therefore I have a brain."
- Descartes.

You have been given a 1 billion dollar research grant to spend on ONE project. What would it be?

>>1646461
>There is no such thing as consciousness