/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8862841
>t. Someone who hasn't studied these subjects

In biology for example, we can make a hypothesis that cell secrete x via response mechanism y.

We then test this theory, and through this experiment, we can ultimately uphold the hypothesis each time or disprove the relationship. If there are outside conditions that change the hypothesis' wording, so be it. We'd rehypothesize and retest.

In psychology, if I want to make a claim, say that a person acts in x manner due to y response, I can test their response. But unfortunately, the human mind does not always work like a cell. It has other irrationalities that get in the way of a correct measurement. People's responses vary, even in extreme pathological cases. The hypothesis could only be changed to something that allows for "general exceptions", but in a way different than conditions for the cell. The differences for the cell can be calculated and measured. You can't measure the human mind.Therefore, general cases must be made, it appears that MOST humans respond x way to y response. That's statistical. You can run tests to see what brain activity there is, but it does not guarantee to display what is being perceived by the person. Ultimately that may change, but shits far away from being quantifiable. Psychologists must instead infer relationships. One day the whole field will be dictated by neuroscientists and behavioral biologists.

We here on /sci/ value truth. Always wondering what someone's exact response or underpinning mechanisms really are is not truth. It's best guessing and hoping the person isn't fucked up.

What general would an undergraduate look to do in terms of research opportunities in mathematics?

>>8699290
what are you Steven Hawkings?

>>8655288
1+1=2
Pythagoras' theorem
The fundamental theorem of algebra
fundamental theorem of calculus
the intermediate value theorem
product rule

google all of these things and you will be fine unless you're a brainlet, in which case no amount of studying can help you

>>8606155

How is 4) supposed to imply 3), I don't get it