/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5848910
At least I managed to finish a post without telling outright lies.
>After each Ice Age, the Earth warms up more than it did the time before.
no such pattern exists
>Data about warming for the last 100 years or so is pointless and tells nothing.
the rapidity of such warming is unparalleled and suggests a major forcing effect.
>Al Gore became a billionaire by selling carbon credits
Al Gore got most of his money from his book sales and isn't even worth a billion.

Why won't janitors delete all the biology threads on /sci/?
>>5792782

Biology is not a science and belongs on >>>/an/ or >>>/fit/.

>>5398627

>burying gas
>2013

This is the dumbest shit ever and it annoys me when people try to argue it.

Nothing has changed except our environment. We still strive to survive, but we do so in civilization instead of "the wild".

As for your drugs/robots idea, logical fallacy. You're implying there is only one outcome to that scenario and there is infact many. Not to mention,it's an unlikely scenario.

And I seriously doubt Humans will one day wake up to such misanthropy and a warped conception about life that we'll all just kill ourselves and effectively end our species. We're still an animal, and our primary goals are to survive and reproduce. There will always be some new technology to discover to enhance both of those. If our AI takes shit over, than there's suddenly a battle to struggle against in order to survive.

Besides, why not fucking enjoy life while you can? The fact that those feelings are just chemical reactions shouldn't distract you.

>>4818761

>implying it's popsci

>>4719929
>FUCKING CASUALS
>FUCKING
>FUCK
>F

>>4684184
>philosophy
>hard science

Anyone who watched at least ~30% of that video raged so hard that they quit the internet/civilized world, surely?

>2011
>Not being apart of the theological noncognitivism master race
ishiggusdiggus

>>4599935
>saging a sticky

>>4448222
>2011
>Not biding your time with a fleshlight until sexbots go into mainstream production
ishaggidydaggy

>>4431566
FUCK YEAH! NEUROBROS UNITE!
>2011
>implying we aren't the atomic physicists of the 21st century

>>4409154
>2012
>Not going to Tulane

I can give this one

>biology
>hard science

>NYPA thread
>on /sci/
GTFO
ISHYGDDT

>- This is AT LEAST an argument from analogy and generally bad science, and unless you have good evidence to back this up (and I mean, showing that the same gene that controls myopia also bring a sharp increase in IQ regardless of ALL other variables in the subject's life), you are not allowed to have any such leaps in logic.

It's not a leap in logic for the reasons exhaustively stated.

As for "showing that the same gene that controls myopia also bring a sharp increase in IQ regardless of ALL other variables in the subject's life": This sounds an awful lot like "find all transitional fossils before we can believe you!" Fun fact: We don't know any of the major genes for human height. But does this lead us to diminish the heritability of human height--or its pleiotropic relationship to foot size?

>And you have yet to address my point here, that the "controlled" interfering variable of "Books" is meaningless in modern society, and therefore cannot account for self-education - for instance, due to social alienation caused by stigmatized look (wearing glasses).

Where is the evidence that "social alienation" can increase nonverbal intelligence? Your post was also loaded with anecdotal and folksy reasoning that doesn't really hold weight.

Ah, you hold up the IQ-myopia connection to strict standards and chastise me for bad science, yet make broad and unfalsifable assumptions. Classy.

>2011
>not doing all your math homework in pen
ISHYGDDT

>>3936577
>hurr let's breed niggers (avg. IQ is 70) with Jews (avg. IQ is 115)
>mfw mutts have an IQ in between, so 87.5 will result
>mfw terrible outcome for humanity
>mfw you're an idiot
>mfw you can just use intelligence to synthesize steroids if you really are interested in athletic ability

>giving a fuck about other people's dick skin

I'm a biologist and i am greatly offended by your post

>>3860508
>neuroscience
>implying difficulty
>implying it isn't one of the restricted items on the list