/sci/ - Science & Math

So, uh, is a PhD in nuclear physics a good move?

I really am glad that I work in one of the harder sciences. Aerospace is goofy sometimes, and our models are patently absurd, but at least we rely on serious analysis and have hard, easily validated performance parameters.

I get into this debate with my dad sometimes (microbiology), where I argue that there is no plausible justification for compromising the credibility of the scientific establishment. He disagrees, and I have yet to understand why. Perhaps I should let him make his case, rather than trying to make mine.

The thing is, objective truth (such as it is) is already hard to defend. It is immoral, tenuously supported by evidence, and generally counter-intuitive. Hell, in aerodynamics, the prevailing models are patently absurd! Whenever you have to debate scientific theory against charlatans, you're fighting at an immense disadvantage, because they have the luxury of being able to present a coherent framework.

To throw away the century of credibility that american academia has developed, is to concede every future argument against the ill-informed and mal-intentioned. I was already skeptical of medicine, due to their lax standards of proof and primitive models. Now I have a hard time trusting any medicine more modern than ibuprofen.

What if I buy a house of $285 000 and I pay up 20% immediately of that. Bank will give me loan for the rest at 0.9% prime interest and customer margin of 1.5%. We agree that I pay once a month size of annuity is $1400. I do my first payment after 1 month (30 days) after the loan was made. How the first annuity divides between interest and payment?