/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12595757
>can't solve a facebook puzzle

>>12066019
>Morality itself is an emotional response. You are a sociopath.

No you fucking idiot. Most if not all rules we have that are under the umbrella of "morality" have developed purely under utilitarian principles.

>Do not kill.
Society will break in pieces if everybody goes and kills whoever they want. Relatives would retaliate etc. ...

on the other hand
>Killing other people is perfectly fine as long as you are in the military and do the killing while following orders.
As long you kill protecting us and our valuable assets, we are fine with it. Muh society above everything!

>Do not steal.
Again, there would be no stable society if stealing was allowed. You would steal from me. I would get angry and steal from you etc. Maybe I would just kill you, once I'm fed up with you taking my shit.

>People shouldn't have sex before marriage.
If my daughter fucks all kinds of men before marriage, there is no way to know who the father is - then I'm left here providing for her useless ass and her bastards too. No way! People should only fuck when married. Then at least the married couple provides for the children.

>People shouldn't have sex with other people when married.
See above and modify it for the husband's view.

>Prostitution is wrong.
Valuable assets that could be used to provide for wife and children are spent on whores. Not good for muh society.


Feel free to provide other examples of "Morality" and I will tell how it developed.

>>11979518
>women can perform intellectual jobs

>>11785266

he thinks we could do even 0.000001% of the shit needed in the pic

may I remind you that NASA is "trying" to launch the James Webb telescope for 13 years now

>>11771201
fucking kek anon, ur amazing

>>11764196
>Why aren't we pulling up on this fool?
>>11766181
>We don't have rockets that can catch up to that bitch?


He thinks we have anything resembling space flight.

Anything we do in space is a huge fucking deal with months, years or decades of preparation. We couldn't react fast to anything we see in space.

>>11761380
this is beyond science. mathtards btfod

>>11412896
>I still 'feel' that I am smarter.

Which means you are dumb as fuck. Only idiots think their feelings are facts.

Do this:

http://www.matrix67.com/iqtest/

Report back with how smart you really are - or not, nobody cares either way.

>>11322840

You have no idea how obvious it it that you are underage.

If you were older than 18 you would know that NASA hasn't done anything noteworthy since the Hubble telescope (which is 30 years ago btw).

A space station orbiting the moon by 2024?
Are you kidding me?

I wouldn't bet any money on a NASA space station orbiting the moon by 2124, let alone 2024.

>>11304340
>Yes we do, we consider different options and weigh them according to our values, thoughts, all those properties that make us what we are, and this result in our choice. That's what deciding is.

Did you decide who your parents would be?
Did you decide what genetic composition to get from them?
Did you decide what values they would emphasize while raising you?
Did you decide in which environment to grow up?
Did you decide on your teachers in school?
Did you decide what people would be in your class?

>What would you guess how much of your (You) is basically determined by these factors?

>>11131648
>Why haven't we picked up anything yet?

Because we are under quarantine due to being greedy and violent assholes.

Do you even keep up with what is happening on this shithole of a planet?

>>11095368

Oh wow, look at this guy! He is concerned about society. Lol.

Well go ahead, try to change other people. Report back how it went.

>>10787220

I like that you ignore everything I said about the person from 1919 being familiar with most things in today's world. Tells a lot.

>>10655628
>he thinks evolution is real
Pfffff hahahahahaahhahahahahaha

>>10652004
>Occam's razor is just saying that the explanation that has the least amount of assumptions has the highest chance of being correct.

>>10652190
>NOT EASIEST. But explanation that uses the least assumptions which is a very different thing.


My grandma has a bad hip and has trouble walking.
This is well known by everybody and documented by her doctor.
I push her down the stairs and she dies.

Least amount of assumtions: the old lady slipped and fell.

Congratulations faggots. I'm glad no policeman is stupid enough to use Occam's Razor.

>>10275888
>his office hours is the best place to pick up girls
Jesus fucking christ I see you've been to 796 Evans too

>>9898964
Okay can you present the actual flat earth arguments correctly? Also please show us the real flat earth. A flat earth which doesn't get debunked by his evil math

>>9132288
But science shows that race exists... so what are you talking about exactly?

>>9132314
So you admit race is real? Also you don't mention the prominence of the jaw.

>>9132403
>>9132411
>>9132428
>>9132437
These posts are absolutely golden.

>>9132408
>There's no meaningful difference between "races"
Apart from:
>hair texture
>skin colour
>facial structure
>prevalence of diseases like Sickle Cell Anaemia and Asian Flush
>prevalence of different blood types
>prevalence of epicanthic folds (skin fold of the eyelid, very common among East Asians)
>cranial capacity
>prevalence of certain genes (e.g. the ones that cause Asian Flush - but also tons of other genes too)
Yeah apart from those - and many, many, many more - there's no differences whatsoever.

>I don't know what a probability distribution is: the post
I know the Creationist who's been hanging around is getting a little desperate, but this is low-effort no matter what. sad!

>>8994168
>The definitions of all the forks in a cladogram are what a cladogram is. Not the illustrations, but the properties people ascribe to the individual forks, namely if it defines two species or not. If you can claim that the fork following a certain life form does not define two species, than you can claim that the one preceding said form doesn't define it and the form(s) in the other prong(s) as species. If you can to this all the way down, then you can do it all the up. No reason to claim otherwise besides pointless tautology. Now you've conceded that cladograms are also Subjective.
>I don't know what the fuck a cladogram is: the post
all taxonomic groupings besides that of "species" are subjective. this is something every evolutionary biologist knows. and yet we use them anyway, because they are useful. and yes, we argue incessantly about the virtues of lumping versus splitting.

>People emerge at different times all the time, what of it?
people don't fucking emerge, you moron. we don't have separate larval stages, and we in fact have extraordinarily long adult lifespans (in contrast to fruit flies, which spend most of their time as larvae or pupae).
>Lots of groups of people also have larger reproductive barriers than, say, lions and tigers
actually false
>Class, geography, politics - all bigger reproductive divides than those between your flies
also false
>Native American peoples and native Australian peoples have never bred up until very recently. Were they different species before and did they cease being so?
no, because their reproductive isolation was comparatively brief. humans have long generation times and low mutation rates, and remained similar enough (physiologically and behaviorally) to easily and frequently interbreed with their Old World counterparts upon being reintroduced. the fruit flies, meanwhile, despite STILL being present in the same environment, do not interbreed in the wild, indicating that sufficient differences have accumulated.

>>8941406
>Before leftist statists ruined things, environmental harm was taken care of using property rights.
when exactly was this mythical era of small government in which environmental concerns were adequately addressed and enforced by such lawsuits? I'm super curious to know.

because air and water pollution was rampant pretty recently in industrialized/urban areas, and the decline in such problems in America (cleaning up the Great Lakes, the reduction of smog in NYC and Los Angeles, etc.) just so happens to coincide with the environmentalist movement gaining ground. in LA specifically, the smog problem was fought back not by people suing over dirty air, but by the proactive enactment of strict emissions standards for cars. automakers didn't go out of business, nobody's rights got trampled, and the air got cleaned up. not bad for "leftist statists".

>>8924293
/thread

this is the kind of shitposting I expect to see on
> /sci/ - Refrigerators and Freezers

>>8732745
> watches a PBS spacetime episode and thinks he suddenly has incredible understanding of a subject
> calls other people brainlets
> tfw