/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5732677
>CounterArguement!
Why not so?
You say in your own way that we are the system we are
We interpret the variety of what we can determine bounds of, scientific rigor is limited to no such thing, by epitomologese have we gained the extent of saying "something I can look at cant be used as it's immediate interpretation", and this is really only an extension of realism, as opposed to reallity, which science likes to think it's doing, but these days its subject to mainstream religion more than ever.
This is always a debate, that is the consequence.

>
>CounterArguement!

Does anyone here happen to know how to use binary logistic regression for categorical variables that interact?

I cannot find a good guide or textbook that outlines how to interpret the results.

What is entropy?

Explain it to me in simplest possible way, I don't get all those scientific descriptions.

psychology is a science right?

k..so. Is it possible for the universe to have never really, started? I mean. 1. Why did it start when it did if it did start at one point in time, there is time without events, maybe not philosophically but to be rational i'd have to say it exists. 2. If you really think about it, hard to explain, but most published theories in today's time start with the question of when it began, and end up working from a singularity, back into the equation that ended in a singularity, plug in the numbers and claim it to be true. It's wrong. But it makes sense to think that the universe is the end all be all of everything. It is everything. Scientific theories should be made upon observations. It's all cool and all to acknowledge the possibilities. But think outside the box while staying inside the big picture. rawr. sadface.
e.g. Big Bang Theory, Big Crunch, Inflation I might as well say even though Big Bang pretty much says it.