/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12756067
>Another alt-right conspiracy theory thread

Please go back to your containment board, poltard. Or better yet, kys.

>>12756067
wojak posting is on the same level as popsci faggotry, maybe lower
>inb4 wojak

>>12756067
>peer reviewe
Now we know why this board suck

>>12756072
>>Another alt-right conspiracy theory thread
Ahh you see, here's a popsci faggot right here! You are both /pol/tards, and you both need to leave.

>>12756072
>>12756073
>>12756078
Hit a nerve, buddy?

>>12756093
No but why should I any respect paper which can't cite sources or have a too low median for generall population median?

>>12756103
respect any paper*
Sorry I'm killing a bottle

>>12756073
>>12756092
me

>>12756072
>>12756078
popsci faggot /pol/tard

>>12756067
>>12756093
wojak faggot /pol/tard

NOW GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD

>>12756067
There are still many people on /sci/ who enjoy letting others do the thinking for them.

>>12756109
Yes /pol/ack but why should I do this >>12756103?

>>12756107
don't EVER drink and /sci/, you fucking pseud, choke on shit

>>12756114
My instincts tells me that your image is complete bullshit
What now?

>>12756115
that isn't me, I never provide references for anything I say

>>12756116
>no median which resemble 50% of a population of a country in which the question was asked
>No source paper
yOu cAn't aLlOw CrItIcAl ThInKiNg
>>12756125
>honest beeing a shitposter
No harm but still *honk*

>>12756114
Jung used sources and case studies

>>12756067
A thread died for this.

How do we stop /lgbt/ from destroying this website

>>12756152
Disrespcting any paper which is absed on opinion. Gen analytics is too expensive for their agenda

I don't see what's wrong with asking for sources desu. Could someone enlighten me?

>>12756124
Think about it like the one end said maybe?

>>12756067
(((peer-reviewed))) research

>>12756067
What's wrong with wanting evidence for claims? Maybe you just don't like it because you can't find any to back up your own opinions.

>>12756172
There isn't if you are asking in good faith, but often people who can't (or won't) critically think use it as a gotcha.

>>12756188
Its not about evidence it about counter evidence
(yes pol/ack counter), try again ple

>>12756172
see >>12756199
>>12756195
fuck good faith who need cuckery?

>>12756210
Good faith is the opposite of cuckery though?

One question /sci/ why tho? WHY?:::
>>12756222
Yes?

>>12756210
>see >>12756199
What exactly do you want me to see?

>>12756172
>>12756188
It's a fallacy, I call it the sauce fallacy. Just because you don't have fucking PhDs backing up your opinions doesn't make it automatically invalid.
It's just a "fuck you I don't want to argue with you because I can't even right now" trick because it's mutually assured destruction of arguments on both sides.
You unleash the endless cycle of
>source?
>source on that source?
>source on that source of that source?
>sauce sauce sauce sauce sauce????
>...
>so what you're saying is you don't have the scientific research to back-up your opinion?
>well I guess I don't even have to listen to you or engage with your arguments because your opinion is scientifically invalid!
Yeah nobody has scientific proof if you keep asking for sources dipshit, I guess nobody is allowed to argue or have opinions now.
Sorry guys, time to pack up and never have any opinions on anything ever until you become a PhD researcher.

>>12756246
Counter evidence atkeast?

>>12756072
they care about facts until it contradicts them.

>Just because you don't have fucking PhDs backing up your opinions doesn't make it automatically invalid.
Asking for evidence does not mean you think the other person's opinion is invalid

>>12756124
Well if your instincts tell you following your instincts is stupid, then you become a good little slave.
I am sure you loved school. School transformed you into what you are.

>>12756255
How exactly does that counter anything I said?

>>12756252
see >>12756263
fucked up the reply

>>12756276
Like I said counter evidence ATLEAST (Yes have fun to attack snowman instead the actual argument npc[pol/sci/x/biz/ always wins])

>>12756252
fuck i meant >>12756270

>>12756272
I enjoyed school because I wasn't a spastic retard who couldn't focus in class or make friends.
I literally ignored the teacher through the entirety of high school and my teachers didn't give a fuck because I got top grades.
Not everyone's a spastic or a conformist, /pol/tard.

>>12756294
your half coherent ramblings do not counter anything i said

>>12756252
Okay but if you want to make definitive claims on tangible, quantifiable things, sauce is very good to have. And if the person you're arguing with posts research... your argument is moot without any sort of validation. Unless the research is bunk, and this happens, but if it is you should be able to call it out. And still, you should be able to find some kind of sauce.


desu it just sounds like you get trolled really easily, and the people asking you for sources all the time are just trying to get a rise out of you. Looks like it worked kek

>>12756272
Im sure regurgitating /pol/tard talking points is totally free-thinking

>>12756311
>just said counter something i said
>counter nothing
>You counter nothing
>counter nothing of nothing
?

>>12756318
>Okay but if you want to make definitive claims on tangible, quantifiable things, sauce is very good to have.
Source on that claim?
>And if the person you're arguing with posts research... your argument is moot without any sort of validation.
Source on that?
>Unless the research is bunk, and this happens,
Really? Source?
>but if it is you should be able to call it out. And still, you should be able to find some kind of sauce.
How can you be certain? Have you read the literature on that topic? Source?
>desu it just sounds like you get trolled really easily, and the people asking you for sources all the time are just trying to get a rise out of you. Looks like it worked kek
Uhm, sweetie, I'm gonna need a source on that claim.

>>12756109
>MY BOArd

>>12756326
sorry, I just don't understand what you're trying to say. At least improve your English a bit

>>12756252
People are allowed to have opinions. When people make claims on quantifiable things though, they should provide evidence so you know they aren't just lying or wrong. For example, if you say, "I think cats or better than dogs", you shouldn't have to provide evidence, it's your opinion. If you say, "Dogs are more dangerous than cats" you should provide evidence.

>>12756347
Hilarious and original
1 updoot and a reward

>>12756350
I said counter something that doesn't represent a minority in a minority. My sister did a master in questionin7 people (and did some math to get an answer for per 100k). I know how bullshitiring on academia level works.

>>12756306
Having top grades makes you a good sheepie.

Anyone who posts any iteration of pepe (that isn't a panel of Boy's Club) or wojak deserves to be doxxed, hunted down, and murdered for being a blight not only to this board and this website, but also to the collective intelligence of the entire human race.
Also they're breaking>>>/global/rules/6 and>>>/global/rules/10 so they must be reported as soon as possible and as much as possible for the greater good.
https://sys.4channel.org/sci/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=12756067

>>12756369
>le ebin iq wojak
Most of these are posted by low iqs pretending high iq people agree with them

>>12756306
Top grades student = trained dog who has learned to do magic tricks in a circus(the modern world).

>>12756357
>People are allowed to have opinions.
Uhm, actually there's a variety of professional opinions on that topic and I think you need to provide me with a source for your particular opinion.
>When people make claims on quantifiable things though, they should provide evidence so you know they aren't just lying or wrong.
Why? Source on that?
>For example, if you say, "I think cats or better than dogs", you shouldn't have to provide evidence, it's your opinion.
Is there a source on the epistemological analysis of that particular phrase concluding that it's an opinion and not a factual claim?
>If you say, "Dogs are more dangerous than cats" you should provide evidence.
Same as above, do you ah e a source for that or are you pulling it out of your ass, sweetie? That's a bit problematic, don't you think?

>>12756376
Based
fuck frog posting subhumans

>>12756361
So you don't have anything backing up your arguments, got it. I guess I'm right, thanks for providing evidence to the affirmative, it's going to be useful for my thesis that I'm going to write about just how right I am.

>>12756376
>Me beeing the only pepe poster in this thread
Diesprove me please.,
Show me ONE
ONE SINGLE STAT THAT DISPROVE MY POINT.
If you want disprove the fucks giving of /pol/ whole 4chan will change in one SINGLE wimp.

You jusut fucked with one of the oldest poster psoster of 4chan. DISPROVE ME

>>12756376
NO FUCKS GIVING BACKED UP BY EVERY CATHAGO FAG IN THIS SITE

>a science board hates empirical evidence
I've seen it all now.

>>12756369
>>12756381
Modern education is completely different from what they had before the 21st century. The curriculum has been so dumbed down and teachers are so limp-dicked that if you can't breeze through it you have to be an absolute retard or a vindictive autist.
Sorry to tell you the truth but being a retard doesn't make you cool.

>>12756418
Is there proof on that claim? Can you empirically prove that you've seen it all?

>>12756439
Disprove your disbpoving?

>>12756369
Fischer was so fucking based, despite being a jew

>>12756457
Eh. I'm more into schiller desu. germ btw

>>12756431
>Modern education is completely different from what they had before the 21st century. The curriculum has been so dumbed down and teachers are so limp-dicked
Is this actually true? if so, what could be the possible reason?

>>12756452
I don't understand, you're not providing me with a proof or a source, I guess that means you have no valid arguments and you should stop talking cause, that's just, like, your opinion, bro.

>>12756369

>>12756460
>Same to you so you should stop arguing if you can't get a source which disproved your point.
Disproving a disproved piont is ponitless if it doesn't prove the half of a given population). That is how academia should work. If You don't think that way you are either retarded or a newfag.(a.e. why 50% of a giving crime is cause by x, to do it for a reatrd tier like yours which can't read threads)

>>12756460
No idea but the older male teachers would still sometimes go on a little rant about how "y'know, caning was bad an all, but it got the job done, my vice principal used to whoop the students' ass and for most of em, once was enough"

>>12756485
are you retarded? what does that have to do with my post?

>>12756492
Critical thinking,
I know its hard but try, Think ahrd and loud. Don't cry if you heard your inner voice commenting. If scared sleep while listing to bs of your choice.