/sci/ - Science & Math

Guys, we need a new board, someone should code a new SciChan in which you're allowed to register and access by showing that you possess AT LEAST an university degree, so it won't be filled of pseudoscience thread such as IQ and other shits
In other words, no /pol/tards accepted
We will remain anon, we just need to prove our credentials to the admins that will SUED if they make our names public without our consent

I know shit about coding so I need a based anon to do so

>>10943572
Guess you're right. But I noticed that they come up with arguments that tries to denies a priori the importance of evidence and arguments that tries to support argumentum ad ignorantiam trying to explain why it "shouldn't be a logical fallacy", they clearly aren't stupid nor uneducated, but still I don't get how they don't realized that those arguments they made are just rethorical sophisms, just some ad hoc arguments for the specific situation
You get full of hate if you mention Russell's teapot kek (and I've always tried to be reasonable, I don't give a shit about what people believes, I just wanted to understand their pov but always ending up being insulted despite not being an arrogant asshole)
So, why do some people are able to accept evidences fitting into newer paradigm and some aren't able?

Op here btw lol