/sci/ - Science & Math

Can we get an auto ban for the name Carl?
That guy only shitposts.

Can everything be described with a qualitative or quantitative value that represents a position on a subjective spectrum?

For example, when a critics rates a movie, or a game, is it completely subjective or are there qualitative benchmarks that need to be met to make it a "good" movie. Clearly "good" in this context needs a definition.

I don't know where I'm going with this.

Carl Sagan was a great man. But the thing he is most respected for by many people, namely is charismatic speeches, is actually the thing I least like about him.

People should be provided with informations and necessary resources. This should be enough for anybody to do the work by themselves and come to the right conclusions.

This is what science is about! Get your ass up, study hard, work and learn more about the natural world.

So what is up with all that "oh we must inspire people" BS? People who only are interested in science when a charismatic dude tells them how wonderful and exciting it is then those people should stay out of science in the first place. I don't want to convince people by making emotional appeals! The only way to convince people in science are hard facts and people for whom that isn't enough aren't welcome!

As I said: I like people like Sagan, Dawkins, Tyson, Brian Cox, Lawrence Krauss and to some extend even Mio sucku mucho Cocku but they should stop the "lets get people inspired" BS.

Son, you can smoke weed or you can do science. But you can't do both at the same time.

>>2228446
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.