/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10529309
>if I just call him a retard surely I'll come out looking like the winner!

>>5946103

>>5643033
So the high-schooler is back.

Anyway I'm of now. I have proven my superior intellect once again. You could not even answer the basic question because your truly are a underage tard learning pre-calc.

Go back to /b/ with your rebbbit bullshit. You don't belong in /sci/

And the answer was 1/28. Though you'll never figure out how to get there. Chao motherfuckin high schooler. You will take over 5 years before reaching quantum field theory, which you'll never get accepted into a Physics degree anyway at Uni. Sucks to be you kid. Janitors are always an option though.

>>5343812 here. I'm back.
I don't want to resurrect this shitty thread, but in case some /pol/lacks are still lurking to see if I can respond, I'm going to offer a quick rebuttal and abandon the thread forever.
>>5343847
>muh monopoly on education is best because we silence all critics, it's good to know we're objective
You're the guy who called socialism the economic equivalent of creation "science". Well, yeah. But so is the Austrian "school," and to a much larger extent. And your argument shows that quite well. Academia doesn't silence critics or keep disquieting viewpoints out. That's what creationists claim when their espousal of the 'truth', revealed to Moses, is disregarded because none of it can be demonstrated via the scientific method. It's also what Austrians claim when their espousal of the the 'truth', revealed by Mises, is disregarded because none of it can be demonstrated via the scientific method. There is no conspiracy. You can publish. But you get laughed at if you do.
>Lol yeah, don't try to play middle ground here
This is why you should go to /pol/ and stay there. I didn't "play middle ground". You claimed gender wasn't social construct and I said the exact opposite. The second part of my statement wasn't conciliatory pandering. It was a challenge to your very mindset. When you say 'academia,' knowing that this institution almost unanimously disagrees with you, you equate it with everyone else who disagrees. You think /r/atheism is a representation of science. It isn't. I was trying to tell you that I'm arguing the science behind the bullshit labels you are intent on plastering everything with. I'm not a liberal. I'm just someone who prioritizes science over ideology. Which is something you don't do.
>Error: Field too long.
I'll be back.

aspie overload

>>5202029
Oh my! You win good sir! Your edgy comebacks are just too good!

>>5117168

>>5006031

You fuckin' told them dumb jocks bro.

>>4897445
>wrong accusations of fallacies instead of addressing the argument

Feels good to see you defeated.

CDC SECRET #3: WE INVENT UNPROVABLE, UNTESTABLE STORIES ABOUT HOW MATTER CAME FROM THE PERIOD, WHICH CAME FROM NOTHING, MEANING MATTER CAME FROM NOTHING, WHICH WE DENY BECAUSE THEN WE'D HAVE TO COME UP WITH WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE THE PERIOD, WHICH WAS NOTHING, SO WE JUST SAY THE PERIOD POPPED INTO EXISTENCE, AND WE DON'T WORRY ABOUT WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE THAT. GET IT? OH, AND WE ALSO CALL THE PERIOD A "SINGULARITY" BECAUSE THAT MAKES US SOUND SMART.

CDC SECRET #4: WE DON'T KNOW WHY IT STARTED SPINNING. IT JUST DID. THEREFORE WE HAVE INVENTED STORIES TO EXPLAIN IT.

CDC SECRET #9: THE ONLY THING REALLY EVOLVING IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ITSELF.

CDC SECRET #11: WE KNOW FOSSILS COULD NOT HAVE FORMED GRADUALLY, BUT WE'LL NEVER ADMIT IT.

etc etc.

>>4843124
Nice lack of counterarguments.

>>4739115
This is exactly it. You can't rationalize to me why ties and coats should be a subset and not its own set. There is no reason it should be one or the other, indiscriminate of its properties.

>>4631593
Well your considering you are blatantly disregarding my post I am going to assume that you are doing so because you are unable to reconcile any perceived problem an answer might create.

>>4527450
Irrelevant. I asked you. Stop changing the burden of proof. Tell me of a measurement that is free of human qualitative convention. Seems like you can't. If that is the case. My argument prevails. And subjective experience can be quantified, because quantification does not necessitate objectivity, which is a fundamental impossibility because of our inability to know all variables.

It was a good run.

>>4424557
>MFW

>>4417684
>mfw