/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11493005
Woah, I didn't know that board even existed! Thanks, anon!

>>11478181
>is merely based on mindlessly dividing deaths by reported cases like a freshman who pedantically applies memorized formulas without no understanding of the subject at hand
>the world health organization is merely freshman who pedantically applied memorized formulas without no understanding of the subject at hand
You are dumb as fuck my man, and just outed yourself to having no idea what you are talking about. And there is no hope for repair for you. Link me some more twitter threads please. Great info, high iq poster.

>>11478181
>In which the credible fatality rate would be even lower than the 0.8-1% extrapolated from data and not the exorbitant 3.4% the moron in chief keeps insisting on
Do you even understand the words you are saying? Sadly you won't be anywhere to be seen when you're proven wrong in 2 months

>>11219173
Are you retarded? Did you even read OP before answering his question? The other guy is stating a negative, he isn’t saying “nothing”.

>>11219537
That you don’t know, which is the truth.

>>11219170
>Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem.
Do you want me to wipe your ass for you too?

>>11219076
Are you actually a braindead? Do you not understand basic philosophical terminology yet you’re quoting Descartes? Please educate yourself retard. Ontological arguments are those trying to prove the existence of God from reason. This is precisely what Descartes was trying to do. Discourse on the Method is short enough that you can read it in a couple hours. Please do so before embarrassing yourself yet again, dumbfuck.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/