[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.11924304 [View]
File: 37 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11924304

>>11905750
>during the day, I'm a theoretical physicist. It's pretty iiiiinteresting, but at night, I head over to the titty bar and have a stripper buy me a few drinks while I finish up my work. They told me I couldn't do both. But I do it anyway because I feel like it.

>> No.10098762 [View]
File: 37 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10098762

>>10098740
>you're confusing evolutionary psychology with evolutionary biology
No, both are baseless junk. Unless you take "creative writing" as science.
>other than by throwing money at those women
Yes. For example by raping women. Or breeding a mexican chick and shitting out 7 spawns with her, like they do.
>men who are charismatic and well heeled you don't think that evolution informs people's decision to give them more attention, resources, mates, allegiances
No. If you claim it does, back it up with *solid* stats.
>We can't know nuffin bout dat?
We can, but not in a way that would make sense for a brainlet evolutionary storyteller. Sorry, but hunting for weak correlations and conjuring a "cool" story around them isn't science.

>> No.9896134 [View]
File: 37 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9896134

>>9893891
>That theory isn't widely agreed upon
Behold a true climate "scientist" wielding his most favourite tool - consensus. While consensus holds no weight in science, it is among the most powerful tools in climate "science", apart from conveniently ignoring empiric evidence that doesn't agree with consensus, relying on ensembles without understanding them, and other tools of deception.
See, the argument against the theory is this: it produced no model to test its predictions and is contradictory to some models currently being used.
Not some bullshit about consensus.

>> No.9835763 [View]
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9835763

>>9833634
Please stop conflating engineering with science. Military hardware wankery is not science. Please delete your thread. Thank you.

>> No.9741676 [View]
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9741676

>Fibonacci sequence (8 + 1) term ≈ (Planck's constant / speed of light) * [{((Napier number ^ 2) / (Napier number -1) ^ 2 * 10 ^ 5} ^ 8]
>≈

>> No.9725862 [View]
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9725862

>>9725749
someone on s4s posted a link to a paper that studied biomarkers of arousal in people whose sexual orientation is towards that of mtf transgenders, and they found these people had distinct responses from both heterosexual and "regular-gay" homos. I didnt save the link, and also lol psychology

>> No.9596645 [View]
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9596645

>>9596491
a figment of a few bad "philosophers" imagination

>> No.9583969 [View]
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9583969

>>9583497
No. But you're not even wrong.
Kill yourself back to /pol/.

>> No.9433230 [View]
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9433230

>>9429430
>Actual science
>Luminiferous aether

This is more math not science but my nomination goes to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox–Zucker_machine

>> No.9338491 [View]
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9338491

>>9338290
>>9338282
>arbitrary units of "scientific advancement"

>> No.9321883 [View]
File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1330577656445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9321883

The thread I was going to reply to got deleted before I could post. It was a troll thread, but memetics is "science," so memetics thread, particularly in relation to the evolution of memes (that is, in the more general sense than just "internet memes") on 4chan.
Someone has already published a paper on the memetic evolution of language on 4chan: http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/schaffner/teaching/fall2017/ENGL505/readings/Sparby.Memes.pdf
There are some decent points but the author totally skims over the fact that "offensive" words on 4chan are not offensive to people who have acclimated to the site's vernacular, which is kind of what I was getting at in my reply to the deleted thread:

The "purpose" of everyone being a "nigger" and a "faggot" on 4chan is specifically to defuse the edge in those words. There are no consequences for being rude or offensive when you're anonymous, so it arises naturally and there is really no reason to try to fight against it; at some point it became background noise to anyone familiar with the site. "nigger" and "faggot" are colloquialisms for "fellow."

I put "purpose" in quotes because there really are no purposes behind any of this. Nobody decided it, it just happened; it's a meme, ie. it arose from a blind evolutionary process. The downward spiral to "nigger faggot" and "post tits whore" happens because those are posts that require a minimum amount of effort and are more likely to elicit a response (compared to similarly low-effort, meaningless posts), even if the response is just as banal ("you're retarded", "fuck off faggot").

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]