/sci/ - Science & Math

/sci/ a month ago.
>It's nothing guys.
>just a flu
>it'll be gone and forgotten by Summer
How does it feel to be wrong again, /sci/?

wtf is even happening here?
the Sino-entist seems kinda cool tho

>>8596614
I read the report and I'm inclined to agree with >>8596587
no attempt to account for confounding factors, no proposal of any mechanism beyond nebulous handwaving.

also, the cause of infant death was not even addressed. if countries that administer lots of vaccines saw an increase in infant death related to inflammation or something, the authors would have a point. but if the higher infant death rates come from a combination of unrelated causes (pneumonia, opportunistic infections, suffocation, congenital defects) that differs across countries with similar vaccination schedules, that's strong evidence that the observed trend is merely noise.
without looking into cause of death (for which statistics are readily available in a lot of countries) their analysis is incomplete and misleading.

>>8538404
>If tool use was all you needed for high analytical intelligence, advanced civilization should have emerged a million years earlier.
there are plenty of things that emerge long after they first COULD HAVE emerged. to give just a few examples, multicellularity, calculus, and association football.
fossil evidence indicates that practically the entire increase in brain size and complexity among early humans (responsible for the mastery of fire and stone knapping, among other things) occurred well prior to the development of agriculture and settled society. how do you square that with your ludicrous claim that "agriculture and civilization" caused humans to suddenly achieve modern intelligence through sexual selection?

>Physical appearance is an indicator of overall health and vigor. Civilization and Agricultural society makes it even more important then ever, and causes even greater levels of selection.
Wait wait wait.
You're telling me that in settled agricultural societies, where food is plentiful, physical dangers are lesser, and where food can be stored as a defense against lean times...selection for health and vigor is GREATER than in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies where falling too ill to hunt (or run from predators) is practically a death sentence. Dude, do you even read this stuff back before you post it?

>can you not compare a semi-nomadic society to a hunter gatherer society
this may come as a shock to you but hunter-gatherers tend to be semi-nomadic.

>But you have to be insane if you think being a effective ruler in a civilization/state/chiefdom is equal to a h-g society.
it's different, but the selective pressure (in terms for what's being selected for) are pretty much the same.

>>8120656
>our plural anecdote is different
bitches don't know bout our random sample
nice repetition of the Legates meme btw
>maybe if we only classify papers as supportive if they say it exactly this one particular way...

>>8120681
>part of the pacific ocean fluctuates slightly ahead of global temperature fluctuations
>therefore the pacific ocean is responsible for climate change!
dude, really? all you've established is that fluctuations in one part of the globe are mildly predictive of fluctuations in the global temperature.
again, you are conflating the causes of year-scale fluctuations with the causes of long-term trends. it's like saying that because changes in river output are correlated with the tides, that the flow of rivers must be caused by the moon. magical thinking, nothing more.

>>8120752
>let's pretend scientists said a bunch of stupid shit

>>8120827
>I omitted two chunks of a time series, and hand-drew trendlines on the three remaining segments to make it say what I want it to say
and you accuse climatologists of data tampering?
>explain this!
>posts two papers concluding that climate change is happening
JUST

>>8120842
>implying the apparent pause is real and not a statistical artifact

>>8120897
oh look, you posted the Jaworowski graph again. you do REALIZE that Development in Earth Science isn't a real journal, right? also
>hurr I'm gonna look at some trendlines and just tell you if they're correlated or not without running any statistical analysis
but as we all know, bad science (and I mean the sort of tripe that wouldn't even make it past the editor) is perfectly fine if it tells you what you want to hear.