/sci/ - Science & Math

It's happening

>>10782857
>GIT

>another IQ thread

>>8958992
Well actually there is an annoying contradiction with the argument FOR fluoride.

Their argument says:
Statement 1.) its good for teeth and oral hygiene
Rebuttal 1.) it only spends a minimal amount of time on your teeth before you swallow the water and it goes straight to your stomach, and if it somehow crosses the gut wall, it will cause flaws in those same teeth and bones.

Statement 2.) Well if its not good for your teeth it must be there to kill bacteria. Yes, that has to be the reason.
Rebuttal 2.) If it can kill bacterial cells it can sure as hell kill human cells, therefore its bad to swallow and ingest fluoridated water and products.

Statement 3.) No see your human body has billions of cells and therefore can afford to lose and replace a few, whereas the water supply is not contaminated by billions of cells its only a few... losing a few cells through fluoridation is much more preferable than loosing... a few... cells... from bacteria... humm
Rebuttal 3.) Who decided that i had to choose between those options. There are chemicals slightly more safe than fluoride, why arnt we just using those instead? This is a restricting the options fallacy. And lets not forget the government doesnt say that fluoride is an acceptable loss, it says the fluoride is completely safe to ingest throughout the course of ones life. We could easily see a latency period in the effects of fluoride and it could be our generations version of asbestos.

As you can see ive demonstrated here that the logic behind using fluoride is deeply flawed. Atleast its a restricting the options fallacy or even a necessary and sufficient conditions confusion fallacy.

However if someone tries to link this with a global conspiracy that is somehow all powerful and responsible for the reason they as people cannot get ahead in life; like ancient aliens or devils then this is most likely a circular argument fallacy.

>>8851707
>what's bothering you today, anon?

Gay science.

Gays chose to be gay even before there was any science to back them up. Now there is science that has shoddy scientific method and is fallacy ridden if not outright falsified and the gays use this as a temporary lily pad of credibility for a decision they had made before the science came out.

It actually worries me that they can belive some of the incredible bullshit they speak, like gayness somehow raises IQ or is some kind of super power.

When you cancle out the biases in the same way someone balances an alegebra equation you realise there are two real conclusions you can draw about gayness.

1.) It is not an Evolutionary Stable Strategy
2.) There MUST be people in the media that are smart enought to know gayness is flawed but still support it anyway.

QUESTION: what's better? dual bachelors in Engineering and Computer Technology, or a combined honors in math and computer science?