/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4675998
>if it wasn't for corporate funding science and technology wouldn't have increased at all.
Oh, I don't disagree. But corporate funding acts in its own interest, and you've seem to have completely forgotten that. Keep suckin' dem cocks, brah.

>your bitching doesn't change anything, scientists need to live, and if somebody is willing to give them the money to live for doing science, then they better fucking take it.
Then they aren't scientists. They're just engineers, maintaining and performing the experiments that other people actually thought of.

>the only reason scientists in the past were able to uncover anything is because they were ALREADY RICH, they did it as hobbies.
Then there's your answer. The only good scientists are the ones who aren't performing science for the sake of making money.

>that's impossible, or unpractical today.
I've at least realized and addressed the problem. I've warned you about what's going to happen, and I'm telling you now, pseudo-science is going to take control very soon until science starts producing what the public is interested in, rather than what businesses are interested in.

>I prefer my sea of corporate science over a few sparsely spread rich scientists any day.
I don't. At least those scientists loved what they did. The new breed of science is just full of fucking assholes who think their intelligence is only relative to their paycheck. I hate it when engineers call themselves "scientists".

>>4658273
Guy from >>4658257 here.

Why are you calling me a troll?

I actually like the idea of "Qualia".
Whether it exists or not, it's still an extremely conventional concept.

I just don't waste my time arguing about it like a faggot.

>>4646027
One of my roommates is drug dealer who has openly told me that he wanted to kill me.
He's had restraining orders placed on him in the past.

My place has been robbed twice now.
We don't have hot water because said roommate forgot to pay the bills.

I'd leave, but I don't really have anywhere to go.
If you like to trade me places, I'd be more than happy to.

How ironic is it that I've developed "Narcissistic personality disorder" from constantly posting on an Anonymous website?

>>4614074
Okay, you see this thing you're doing right now?
This is why people like to claim that atheism is a religion.

Quit supporting fascism. It doesn't solve anything.

>>4589774
>>4589763
You guys are doing nothing but firing an endless barrage of one-liners at one another. Most people would realize by that point that there's nothing left to be said, but for some reason, you just keep going.

Just throwing this out there, if you think you can construct a solid argument with just a single sentence, chances are likely you're not really contributing anything.

Take it to a chat room somewhere.

I remember on PBS, there used to be this advertisement they would always show when I was a kid.

One kid would have a dictionary, the other would have a computer. They would have two kids race each other to see who could find the definition of a specific word.

The announcer would yell go, and each commercial was the same. Kid 1 would open his book and start flipping through pages. Kid 2 would open a CD case and start putting it into the CD drive. But by the time Kid 2 had launched the program, Kid 1 had already found the word.

I was somewhat aware of it as a kid, but looking back, I never realized just how fucked up that commercial was.

I'd like to say that it's being taught wrong. But the problem is that I don't know what counts as the "right" way to teach it.

Kids learn different ways. And that's not something that I think can be helped. If anything, I think we should test kids early on to see what learning style fits them most, and then teach them accordingly.

To give an example, let's imagine we have this kid who's doing poorly in class. You run two different tests on him:

On the first test, you test him by asking him to draw all of the possible nets for a hexahedron. He fails the test, but still manages to make a very nice doodle of a whale.

On the second test, though, you ask him to draw all the different ways he can unfold a die. Suddenly, this same student out performs anyone else in the classroom. Most of the kids just draw 7 or 8 nets, but he manages to give you all 11 before anyone has finished.

No one taught him how to do it. He never memorized it. He can't explain it easily, either. He simply "understands" what he's doing.

Do we ignore kids like this because they are too difficult to train? I feel as though that's precisely what we're doing when we put them all in the same classroom and expect them to learn math the same way.

I don't know, man. I just don't know...

>>4345333
Oh great. I accidentally got the attention of the most insufferable prick in this entire board.

Go away, valjean. You're not exactly a "discussion" person. You're more of a "my opinions are facts" kind of guy. Sure, you're right with everything you said. But you completely missed the point I was getting at, and understanding other people's perspectives is kind of your weak point.

You're smart. And I like that. But you're a huge fucking asshole, so that ruins all motive I have of discussing anything with you. Ever.