/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8861786

Wrong picture

Do Christians stunt scientific growth?

>>8717569
Cultural and genetic diversity are the same thing only so far as they're about diversity. The same pitfalls that are present in lack of genetic diversity are also present in lack of cultural diversity.

For example, what would happen in a culture when 100% of the population believed the exact same thing, even if it were wrong or incorrect. They didn't need to share all their thoughts, just 1 thought that everyone believed to be true. Now imagine that society, with incorrect belief, made it so anyone who had a different thought, or tried to correct the wrong thought everyone had, were punished or killed. This is exactly what happened during the dark ages.

How advanced would we be now if the dark ages didn't exist?

How accurate is this /sci/?

>>6939863
>>6939756
>implying the bible isn't full of magical fairytale bullshit

>implying Christianity didn't set back western culture by centuries

>implying modern Christians actually follow the bible or their supposed dogma


lrn2WorldHistory101

Christianity set the world way back. And the Christianity practiced today is extremely different than the original barbaric versions. If modern Christians actually followed their bible, they would be just a bad as Islamic terrorists.

The majority of the shit in the bible is completely illegal and objectively immoral by western standards.

>>6935451
>to contribute to science pre-1700's

Science didn't exist in that time. The church forced their dogma upon everyone and due to the Flynn effect people back then weren't smart enough to use logic (which also wasn't invented yet). The scientific method as we use it today has been known no earlier than the late 19th century. I suggest you take a history class before posting ignorant bullshit.l

Here's a better chart. Doesn't include the singularity but at least it's scientifically accurate.

>>6227439
Yes, I am aware and it is very sad. Just imagine how advanced humanity could be today if we never suffered from religion.

we would be on a spaceship trying to create artificial stars to power our artificial planet.

>>5565886
>You tell me how that is supposed to make society better,

You tell me how religion is supposed to make society better? LMFAO

And if it wasn't for religion, we would probably have populated a large portion of the galaxy by now.

>>4658253

Alright I fucked that up...
my pic is in response to this...

Help me out /sci/.

How would you bisect a cube in the 4th dimension?

It can't just be 2^4th right?

Also, would points on a given plane have to be defined as the predetermined path from which the cubes moves through time?

I don't know how the data on this graph was gathered, nor do I know if it's complete BS or not.

But I like it, and it's related.

>>4122654
>>4122654

It's true. Moore's law is specific to transistors. However, the increase in the number of transistors per area would generally imply technological advancement. Since science and technology are so interwoven, you would expect scientific advancement to follow the same curve. Anyway, it's purely intuitive to think that science and human knowledge will exponentially grow.

The question begged is:
When do we reach the asymptotic point on the curve where df/dx is undefined? In other words, when will the technological and scientific paradigms finally shift?

>>3438159
Hahahahaha.

>>3355359
How is it bullshit?

Since scientific knowledge grows exponentially, and the military and government were a hundred years ahead of its time a century ago, that means that right now, they may as well be anywhere from 500 to 1,000 years ahead of us.

Deal with it.

>>2978243

>>2752335

>implying we didn't have to fight tooth and nail to get past religion for real progress

In theory, if we hadn't had the Christian dark ages, how would the world look today?

No one has posted this yet?