/sci/ - Science & Math

depends on what. I mean, i wouldnt trust anyone with the shit they spew on E!

what non-scientific stuff do you mean?

I kind of group people into groups of "can think scientifically" and "can't"

I trust people that think about things before they spout anything

>>1432290

Matters related to literature, law, history, philosophy, religion, visual art, or music.

besides clothing and popular celebrity gossip, what stuff doesn't have at least *something* to do with science?

>>1432297

So you wouldn't trust a movie review by a critic who doesn't "think scientifically"?

>>1432314

Sport
Cooking

>>1432314
Psychology

coolface.gif

No.

>>1432313
in that case, i would trust individuals who specialize in each respective field.

I would trust Mark Twain with issues of literature over Steven Hawking and Joe Dumbfuck.

I would trust my Lawyer with issues of law over Carl Sagan and Bill McFuckstain.

I would trust Leopold von Ranke with issues of history over Richard Dawkins (unless were talking about evolutionary history) and Sally Praystoomuch.

I would trust Plato on issues of philosophy over Bill Nye and David Davidson.

Why would you trust anyone with religion? The entire concept of religion is designed to fuck you over. Don't trust anyone who claims to work for, understand or be a part of, any god or his "great plan". Just stay away from this steaming pile of crazy bullshit.

I would trust Bob Ross on issues of visual art more than James Watson and Emily O'Slutbagg.

I would trust Hans Zimmer on issues of music more than Jane Goodall and DJ Cocksucker.

>>1432338
sociology

Generally speaking, I first judge an opinion based on its own worth, independent of who said it. Then, once I've determined the credibility of the statement, I look at who said it. If the person is an expert in a relevant field, I accept as being more or less true. If he's outside of his field, I think, "well it could still be true, but..."

If the statement is retarded, I don't even bother looking at the expertise of the speaker.

Also, there's a difference between unintuitive and straight-up retarded.

>>1432332
>sport
besides injuries, and materials involved in making shoes with the best traction, gloves with the strongest grasp, balls that can travel quickly and can withstand being kicked, thrown, hit with a bat, etc.

>cooking
no science in cooking? methinks you need to learn how to cook. The whole process by which you make new recipes is very similar to the scientific method.

whose face is the picture? She looks like she has the hump (p.s. this comment is as equally unrelated to science as the post... always the case with the posts with this picture...)

>>1432375
Watching and doing sports has nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned.

And you obviously never cooked a meal in your life, let alone cooked something "new"

>>1432282
ａs ＰｒeｖIｏｕsｌY_mｅｎｔIOｎｅｄ,_Ｔｈesｅ_ＭＥssｓａgｅS_WｉＬｌ_ｃOｎ
ｔＩnＵE_UｎTＩＬ_ＹＯu_ＰeRMＡｎＥｎtＬy_sｔｏＰ_ａｔＴACKｉNG_aＮＤ FｕＣkiｎg_ｗＩtｈ ＷＷＷ.AｎｏNDeＲｐｔaｌK.SＥ (RｅＭOve_Ｔhｅ ｄＥｒp),_rｅMoＶe AＬl ＩlＬegaL ＣＬｏnEＳ_Oｆ_ＩＴ_ａND ｌieS aboUｔ iT Aｎd ｄＯＮＡTE_At_lEＡｓＴ_a_mIlｌiＯN UｓＤ Ｔo ＳＹsoＰ As ComPeNSＡＴiｏＮ_Fｏr_Thｅ mASSｉVＥ_DamａｇＥ_yｏU RｅＴARds ＨＡvＥ ＣaｕｓＥｄ.
qxoyorhm dx grc gvj zg wgbvqicrby agc uzu s q

>>1432375
wtf are you talking about.

OP:
>Do you trust scientists more than non-scientists in non-scientific matters?

So you would trust one of your professors more than, say a sports commentator, or a chef, just because hurr durr there's some science underpinning everything.

>>1432438

>So you would trust one of your professors more than, say a sports commentator, or a chef, just because hurr durr there's some science underpinning everything.
These so called experts are great at describing surface details, but only a scientist say anything meaningful about anything.

>>370292
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki

>>1432626

>>1432286

Easy question to me...
i would rather trust a priest then a sceintist.

great chanse the sceintist is an atheist.
Atheists are known for thier lack of moral, they don`t give a shit if they are arrogant,lying in thier profit,stealing and even pedophile.
They all talk it good to themselves in the name of social darwinism.

i don`t care about the shitstorm as usual of calling me retarded and shit.
Just accomodate your children to sceintist if you prefare to do so... but don`t be surprised if they return all sorts of fucked up.

>>1432375
go suck a dick you pedantic cunt

Actually, isn't Darwinism just a term used to radicalize theists against people who enjoy freedom of thought?

>>1432753
They're not even being pedantic, they're just plain wrong.

>>1432286
I guess a more useful question is, if u appreciate "hard" scientists doing "soft" science with the quantitative framework??

if the field is scientific, I trust those that think scientifically and have experience in the field

if it is not, then I don't listen to experts whatsoever

>>1432286
EVERYONE REPORT THIS SHITTY FAGGOT!
In the thread, put a check mark on the post, then go down to the bottom of the page and press report.

This shitty "emotionless face" Troll has got to stop!

>>1432797

Ima report you.

>>1432805
Knock yourself out, I can change my IP at will!

>>1432284

AＳ_pｒeViOｕＳｌｙ MＥnＴｉｏNEＤ,_ｔＨESE MｅssｓａｇEs_ｗiｌl ＣoＮＴIｎUE UｎTｉl You_ｐeｒｍAＮＥｎTＬｙ_ｓTＯｐ aｔＴAckINg_ＡNＤ_ＦuCkｉＮg_wｉｔｈ WWｗ.ａNoNdｅＲptａｌK.ｓE_(ＲＥmｏｖE tｈｅ deＲＰ), RＥMＯｖＥ aLl_ＩlＬＥgAＬ ＣLｏNｅＳ_oＦ_ｉt ANＤ_LＩeS ａＢoＵT ｉｔ_Ａnd_ＤonＡｔe At_LEaSｔ_Ａ miLＬｉＯｎ_UｓD_to_ＳＹｓＯｐ Ａｓ ｃＯMｐＥNsaｔiOＮ_ＦＯr The_MＡSSiｖE_DAｍAｇE_ｙｏU_ＲEＴaＲＤs ＨaＶe CaＵSＥD.
bmtnlodrsko jxguy a bra mtcc clf q woaees lh

>>1432406

Chem major here, after gen chem, organic, and analytical labs, I can make some awesome ass cake. Chemistry improved my cooking 10 fold.

Plus, as scientists we will never have girlfriends, so we have to learn to cook for ourselves.