/sci/ - Science & Math

>natural
>>>/x/

>>10882545
>What's more likely? There's something wrong with ALMOST EVERYTHING BESIDES YOU? Or something wrong with YOU?
Appeal to popularity =\= Occam's razor
Occam's razor states that the least complex explanation is most likely, not that the most popular one is. What's more likely; that people are wrong or that facts and hard evidence are wrong?
>Occam's Razor would recommend that you assume the latter until you have concrete evidence to support the former
We do have concrete evidence and confirmation bias is a well-known phenomenon.

From how do we get /pol/ off of /sci/? I am sick of tired of these bait threads that are only here to push a political narrative. And they get pissy when you have a different opinion from them even if you agree with some of the stuff they say. The wind up talking about Blacks, Jews, Liberals, Democrats, Communists, Mexicans, and the like out of fucking nowhere. It's insane how they think that's allowed on a board called /sci/ - Science & Math. We may have to take action and sage, hide, and report all their threads and hopefully they'll be gone. What do you think we should do to stop them?

Just wait till they show their true colors in this thread, just watch. You'll know from a few red flags that it's them.

>>8348151
Anon: that is ad hominem

The Conspiracy Theorist's fallacy: Make your argument with dozens of small, easily refutable points. As no one person will be able to solidly refute them all in the short time span available, your argument can never be dismissed.

/sci/, I got denied gradschool due to a bit low a GPA. I just got hired has a lab tach in a pretty big hospital. (BSc Biology) Trying to step by step get myself back into research and academia.

Anyone else get derailed from school for a bit for whatever reason? How did you get back into it? I have the drive to go back now, but once I'm out working for a while I'd afraid that drive will subside.

Anyone else get derailed from their original plan only to find themselves back where they want to be? How'd you do it?

>>7152841
>Implying 4d beings aren't "organic" tesseracian entities, and impossibly configured wheels covered in eyes and some kind of 4 headed angel creature aren't forms they chose because they were "simple and probably not overwhelming"

>>7152873
Twice since i saved it so far.

>It's obvious to those who have gotten to the bottom of the glass
>What is an Easter Egg Hunt?
>It doesn't matter how he found God. It doesn't even matter if you do.
>Which one of these fallacies are me and ol' Werner breaking here?

Mathematics is the science of patterns.

But your question seems to contain a fallacy.

OP asked, Did we discover mathematics or did we invent it?
The name Mathematics was invented.
But impositions of names are used as analogies. Not for your own quest to engage in discussion.

Perhaps your question should be,
"Am i a faggot?"

That would be certainly easier to answer.

shameless self bump

Probably more /critical thinking/ than /sci/, but I'll ask anyway:

Is there a term for the fallacy (if it even is one) of using as a source for an argument something that is hard or laborious to access? For example by linking to several hours worth of seminars and talks, or linking to papers behind a paywall, in order to provide evidence for a point?

>>6609775
>common sense tells us

Why are people obsessed with pain and pleasure? Hell! They even use it as if they defined rationally what is good and what is evil.

Why so many see pain and pleasure as if they were anything more than some convenient mechanisms we acquired through evolution?

And on a more general note, why people do not see ethical systems they hold as something that could change but that is sufficient and reasonable given what they currently know and their reasoning so far? You know, like scientists hold their models but know they could change at any moment given new evidence or provided a better theoretical framework.