/sci/ - Science & Math

It's cool

>>7391035
pic related

No one in science hates philosophy. That is the most retarded thing to say, you must be saying out of hurt feelings or lack of oxygen.

Is this pic true?

>>6004604
there are two parts to my post

1. people need to think more, this include the crazy ideas that will very likely fail (like FTL and stuff)
2. the way we bet on technology bailing us out is stupid

As for you, did you not notice my supporting claims were "extrapolation,anecdotal references" those are things you are explicitly not suppose to use that way. Thus I am either very very stupid or making a satirical joke (the answer is making a satirical joke)
I just boiled down the stupid arguments I often hear for some future tech that will solve all our problems, often on here on /sci/ (singularity anyone?). I do think technology has mostly helped in someways and hurt in others, but that no excuse for being lazy and expecting it to keep helping the way it has.

>>5920778 & others
The problem here is the use of the term space and the value of use. Are we talking low orbit, going to a different galaxy or somewhere in between? You see I am not against space projects, I just want justification and as you may have noticed I am picky. Now let us say we have a project and I say it should not be done, people here get mad. But when I say that a project should not be done it does not mean that there is no merit to it, it just means that there are other projects of higher merit when resources are limited. Now I fully realize that there is subjectivity involved here, but that should be even more reason to fully explain the value of a project.

Here is a check list
1 it can not be done on earth
2 the project needs to be arguably be worth the investment to do it
3 it is worth the opportunity costs to do it from the knowledge at that time
4 the purpose of the space project is not to prepare for yet to be defined future space project
as well as some other context dependent things that can not easily be listed here as the vary project to project

Something that commonly comes up is leaving earth, from the context it strongly implies it is not just a few days on the space station. Now that this raises the question, why leave earth? Excluding colonization or fleeing the planet, why invest those resources that way? Despite these rules of discussion I set up, people keep bringing up things that break the rules like "we are going to die because of a large asteroid". Yet to my bewilderment none have asked why I made such rules or tried much to work within them.
A few have pointed to the technological gains the space programs have given us and there is not debate about those gains, the debate is about the opportunity costs of those gains. Note it is basically impossible to compare selective old gains to general ones that have yet to happen. Also there are some miss associations as NASA does a lot more then space projects.

>>5040177
I suppose, but how would you respond to the rather direct question of "Why?"

I mean, personally I totally get the average scientists answer (pic), but I really don't see the science enthusiasts answer cutting it.
We have lots of many things here on Earth, travelling to space could offer us more, but do we need more? Or at least do we want more enough to justify sending people tens of thousands of kilometres out there into space to get it for us, or live on it for us without even the guarantee of break even returns?

>>4837918
Honestly? Nothing. It's pretty cool though.

3.14

OP, humanity didn't progress from the stone age because everyone was trying to "justify their existence".

It happened because humans are easily bored and we're finding new and creative ways to entertain ourselves.

Pic extremely related. Both of these guys will help make the world a better place. Only one of them is an actual scientist.

how many great thinkers were paranoid? anyone know any?

>>4506796

Chem question: Is the formation of the carbocation that goes on to react with the benzene ring the rate determining step in the Friedel-Crafts reaction?

Are you here because you enjoy it, or because you want to signal to people (yourself included) that you read /sci/?

>>4293587
fuck off science fan
reported

Op's post reminds me of this.

Its been a pleasure anon, go do something great.

>>3461150
>>3461152

FUCK OFF FAGGOTS

There's a huge difference between a scientist and a science advocate.

Honestly, most of science is long, drawn out, and boring. But once you get past that part, you get to some pretty trippy stuff.

And I am a huge drug user myself. I advocate (some) drugs, but don't think that smoking will make you understand anything. You'll just be high.

Pic very related

>>3103207
Woops, wrong SMBC comic!
NOW pic is related.