/sci/ - Science & Math

Is there any alternative that scientists are working on or do we just say fuck it and drain the planet dry of earth gases?

That is my shortlist.

There are some basic topics that I feel like might need more coverage, like algorithms & advanced logic, computer & data science, statistics, natural and social sciences, psychology, world history, government, history of ideas, communication, poetry & music theory, hermeneutics, esoterics & mysticism, semantics & semiotics, reference materials, and books on rigorous writing. Of course, there's also practical living that might be useful to consider as well. You're not smart unless you've built something with your hands, in my opinion.

Otherwise, I think this roughly covers the "breadth" of all of the structures of thought possible for the mind with sufficient depth. It would also give you a passable education, though better curation might improve the final outcome.

Thanks for your time. What are some other books that might be helpful here?

>all these autists in this thread correcting the trolls

Jesus christ, people

>go to school's math lab
>ask for help
>huge black guy with really thick african accent comes to help me
>his name was mambo or some shit
>smart as hell, was able to help me with my problem really easily

/pol/ BTFO

>>7722217
Humans have existed for about 40,000 years

>>7312764
>>7314246
>>7314247

But is Dawkins wrong? I've read a couple of his books. He speaks passionately about how Evolution is true.

He also cites that he gets frustrated with religion because many people use religion to outright dismiss Evolution and science. I get that.

I could see how to mainstream biologists Dawkins is very pop sci, but is he wrong? Can you elaborate as a biologist?

And as far as being strident about atheism, I get it, when 40% of modern 1st world populations want creationism taught in public schools, and idiots hijack planes and behead people because of religion, I don't blame any reasonable person who gets frustrated.

>>7116267

k

>>7098212

>he doesn't realize there will be generic out eventually

>>7092658

>and only slightly les toxic than arsenic

Ok this random statment makes me worry about the arsenic in rice. Why don't people worry about arsenic in rice? Many strains of rice have arsenic in them depending on where the rice was harvested.

>>6041633
But 6 = 3 mod 3.