/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14812848
That I your mom

>>14812848
There is no dogma in science, it is not a religion based on unverifiable truths. A theory is never a dogma.
A scientific theory is:
> A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world, and repeatedly CONFIRMED through experiment or observation.

>>14812900
>There is no dogma in science
That doesn't mean there is no science dogma in society and in the scientific establishment.

>>14812848
>What are the stablished ideas/theories that nobody dares to question for fear or ridicule or because everybody things are unquestionable?
The theory of relativity, which is mostly bullshit. It works only because of coincidence but is basically unfalsifiable.

Radioactive decay is not a constant, it accelerates/decelerates based upon the universe expanding and what kind of decay it is. Our entire radiometric dating model is fundamentally flawed based upon this fact and we've already proven that decay rates are manipulatable.

Special Relativity, the Trigonometric Identity Property, and the pythagorean theorem are the same formula with different labels; the sum of two squares.

>>14812924
Okay, I'll bite. Explain yourself. In what way is relativity bullshit?

>>14812940
it is based on false assumptions, for example that nothing can travel faster than light or that the idea of space-time has an actual physical meaning.

>>14812940
take the d o p p l e r p i l l

>>14812848
Nothing. Schizos will deny anything in order to feel smarter.

>>14812848
Abiogenesis. It's plainly absurd, and no experiment has ever given it legs to stand on. But because a natural understanding of the world demands it, we'll just keep on claiming it's true.

>>14812957
Those aren't assumptions; they're conclusions. Relativity starts with the Equivalence Principle and goes from there.

why is there a dogma but no catma?

>>14813022
I don't think people claim it's true so much as throw up their hands and go "I dunno, something must've happened." Geological evidence tells us that at one time the earth could not support life. Now there's life fucking everywhere. Somehow we got from there to here. How? Nobody knows. But it must've been something.

>>14813026
My karma ran over your dogma.

>>14812900
>There is no dogma in science
>>14812915
>That doesn't mean there is no science dogma
That is exactly that it means, Aristotle.

>>14812848
Psychiatry is helpful

>>14813022
>Abiogenesis
That's a still controversial topic in biology, it's literally the opposite of a dogma
>no experiment has ever given it legs to stand on.
Yes there is, look up the Miller-Urey experiment

>>14813023
Ah yes, the principle that predicts that stationary charges should radiate because that's what they'd do while accelerating in a gravitational field.

>>14813026
>no catma?
...but there is catatonia, a condition that results in unresponsiveness to facts,
as seen by the posts of science denialists in this thread.

>>14813027
>look up the Miller-Urey experiment

dis nigga

>>14813042
That amino acids can form spontaneously under the right conditions is not a controversial assertion. The important question, the one nobody knows the answer to, is how you get from amino acids to proteins.

>>14813039
Lrn2relativistic-electrodynamics fgt pls

>>14813064
You don't.

Simple as.

>>14813064
>The proof of concept for abiogenesis is creating some amino acids in a beaker

LMAO! You know how sad this is, right? It's like saying "Supercomputers can form naturally, look! We found melted silicon dioxide! It's possible!"

>>14812848
Paying idiots who produce nothing of value to larp as science wizards is having a substantial negative impact on society. The idiots think their larp is real, they can't discern the difference between their self aggrandizing fantasy life and irl factual reality

>>14813064
>>14813094
>>14813087
https://youtu.be/TK1E3heBSiI

>inb4 muh j00
Engage with the information, rightards.

>>14812848
People do not magically become "adults" on their 18th birthday. Children who are over 18 years old continue their childlike, immature behavior and activities. This board is a prime example, its full of children in their 20s and 30s who watch cartoons, play videogames and go to school while daddy pays for it all, same as they did when they were 6 years old.

>>14813129
Where proteins tho

>>14813131
That's not a scientific dogma, that's just a thing everyone realizes once they turn 18

>>14813129
wow...amino acids....So very close to the 450ish genes you need to make the simplest life we know of. lmao

>>14813145
>simplest life we know of
Non sequitur.

https://youtu.be/lQrCsPrh11M

>>14813161
If you can't bother to write out arguments in your own words, then I'm just going to assume you're just googling random shit and posting it. Ergo, you're a tremendous faggot.

Kill yourself immediately

>>14813161
Bitch, do you even know what "non sequitur" means?

>>14813145
You need 450 Gene's to make amino acids, but you are a living organism. Naturally without other living organisms around to consume them, amino acids will naturally form in some conditions similar to the deep sea as proven by the Urey experiment. Of course now we have microorganisms which consume any new lifestyle which may form before they can progress, it takes a while, probably a million years.

>>14813202
where proteins tho

>>14813202
A bunch of amino acids bumping around is not going to make complicated proteins. I mean, maybe in 10^500 years eventually they will because of sure randomness, but the time frame of earth is not long enough

>>14813212
Well the fact is that it isn't technically "random", evolution isn't random. As for proteins it probably did form rudimentary proteins after a while. Remember proteins are just strings of Amino acids bonded together, two amino acids sticking together is enough to form a protein.

Of course there's also the possibility that life has gone through several "epochs" of molecular complexity, and that life never originally formed proteins or amino acids, but that over time it evolved into DNA-protein-amino as a consequence of increasing evolutionary complexity. Life was probably originally closer to a cellular automata, not unlike Conway's game of life.

>>14813232
>As for proteins it probably did form rudimentary proteins after a while
What is a "rudimentary protein?" There's no evidence of any such thing in extant life.

>>14813240
>What is a "rudimentary protein?"
Two amino acids bonded together.

>>14813167
>If you can't bother to write out arguments in your own words
I can, it's just easier to give you a video. Amino acids can self-polymerize inside lipid vesicles and copy themselves by providing a template for further polymerization (crude form of genetic material). This process can have errors (mutation). Lipid vesicles absorb other lipid vesicles along with their contents (transfer of genetic material), and can split apart (reproduction). The polymers inside the lipid vesicles can confer structural advantages, such that the lipid vesicles with the best polymers absorb the others and dominate the population (natural selection). So we have all the factors necessary for evolution in a very simple proto-life form. Recent research shows that RNA can hybridize with amino acids to form highly functional protein structures, which explains how RNA and DNA took over as genetic material from amino acid polymers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35546190/

The world is either computer simulation or cellular automaton, speed of light is either mesh or cell size

>>14813174
It means "the simplest life firm we know of" is irrelevant because abiogenesis occurred in a far simpler form we don't know of.

>>14812848
you mean like this? pic related is dogma, which is the opposite of science.

>>14813210
Amino acids can self-polymerize. Also, see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35546190/

>>14813258
forgetting to post a picture is science
this is what science looks like

>>14813246
How many amino acids make up this chain of self-polymerizing proto-RNA?

>>14813212
>A bunch of amino acids bumping around is not going to make complicated proteins.
A bunch of amino acids contained in lipid vesicles under the right conditions will form complicated proteins eventually. See >>14813161

Monoamine hypothesis of depression (finally being questioned by the mainstream)

Out of Africa hypothesis

LDL hypothesis of atherosclerosis

DNA alone determines the physiology and morphology of organisms

Natural selection alone is the only mechanism by which organisms evolve

Neutrinos

The big bang theory

Virtually every theory of modern physics and cosmology is ripe to be overturned or modified in the same way that classical/Newtonian physics was overturned in the 20th century

>>14813212
NTA but you're right, a bunch of amino acids bumping around isn't going to make a protein, however that's not how biologists think proteins came about. If you think about it, you need DNA to code for information for making proteins, but you also need proteins to replicate DNA (DNA polymerases, helicases, ...etc are all proteins), So which came first, DNA or Protein? the current prevailing theory (although far from being universally accepted) is that RNA gave rise to both DNA and Protein, this is the premise of the RNA world hypothesis
There is evidence for the RNA world hypothesis, for starters, RNA can code information just like DNA, but importantly RNA can also have enzymatic activity just like proteins, these molecules are known as ribozymes, they are basically RNA enzymes. There are many papers which explore the evolution of ribozymes and how ribozymes could very easily evolve into highly efficient self replicating enzymes under the right conditions. Also another thing to mention is that the ribosomes (the molecular machines which synthesize proteins) are mostly made up of RNA, ribosomes are presumably one of the remnants of the RNA world.

>>14813271
>DNA alone determines the physiology and morphology of organisms

Debunked long ago, the new shit is epigenetics, almost like neo-Lamarckism 2.0 patched up and improved

>>14813263
I don't understand the question. How many links make up a chain? Between one and infinity?

>>14813281
Epigenetics still relies on gene expression in DNA.

>>14813094
>It's nothing like saying «unrelated blather»
FTFY

>the human species
darwin's finches are all different species because of their different physical adaptations, indian elephants are a separate species from african elephants because they evolved separately and in different environments and they look different, but humanity is one species.

>>14813271
>Neutrinos
What? are you saying neutrinos don't exist?

>>14813293
Well have YOU ever seen one?

>>14813284
Yes, but the outcome of that expression varies greatly and genetic marks obtained during lifetime can be inherited, why artificially change DNA with unexpected consequences, if the DNA blueprint is excessive enough and allows manipulation through controllable expression

>>14813290

>>14813290
At the end of the day taxonomy is completely arbitrary, and if anthropologists feel more comfortable lumping every extant hominid into one species, there's no objective argument against doing so. It's probably better if we do so. Imagine the cultural and political ramifications if we acknowledged multiple species of human on earth.

>>14813294
Sight is not the only way to determine if something exists.

>>14813293
I'm not saying neutrinos don't exist, but alternative explanations for phenomena attributed to neutrinos should be considered. Neutrinos are one of the shakier ideas in modern physics. It seems every new experiment finds new anomolies which require some modification to the theory. Perhaps physicists should go back to beta decay and find a new explanation for the lost energy.

>>14813312
Arguably it's the worst way.

The best way? Licking.

>>14813331
It's not energy that's the problem; it's spin. There has to be a chargeless particle with spin 1/2 that has either very little mass or no mass.

>>14813350
There has to be such a particle in Fermi's theory of beta decay. I'm suggesting physicists go back to the drawing board and consider alternative theories of beta decay which don't involve the neutrino. I'm aware this would be controversial. We're discussing established ideas which "nobody dares to question".

>>14813386
It wouldn't be controversial; it'd be a stupid waste of time. We KNOW neutrinos exist; they've been detected. They're not some elusive maybe-particle that theory predicts but that we've never confirmed. They're real as bananas.

>>14813394
Obviously I don't think neutrino experiments are as conclusive as you or most mainstream physicists think they are.

>>14813408
Why?

>>14812900
>>14813033

>>14813346
>The best way? Licking.
Yes

>>14813478
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilic_infantilism

>>14812848
For fucks sake will we ever stop talking about "the science"?
There is no "the science", there is the scientific method and the scientific community, and they are two separate things. The scientific method is very good. The scientific community is not perfect, as it can be victim to innocent errors, political and moral meddling, corruption and just straight up ego.

>>14813432
Several reasons. First, neutrino experiments are incredibly sensitive, and neutrinos are never detected directly. It's possible the gamma ray signatures could be produced by some other mechanism(s). Second, each new experiment in the history of neutrino physics produced anomalous results which required modifications to the theory, which created new problems, further modifications, and so on. The solar neutrino experiment, for instance, measured fewer neutrinos than theory predicted, so the theory was modified to include neutrino oscillations. That modification implied that neutrinos, which were theoretically massless, have mass, which presents new problems which have yet to be solved. A good theory makes good predictions. It doesn't make predictions which require the theory to be continually modified with each new experiment. I could go on with the current state of neutrino physics, and ridiculous ideas like sterile neutrinos, but I think you get the idea.

>>14813494
you consider yourself a part of that community and at the same time you cast blame for all of that community's failures and crimes on others.
irresponsible, untrustworthy, manipulative, dishonest. doubtless that your commitment to the scientific method is feigned

>>14812848
not really a dogma, but i think its pathetic evo psych is granted any credence

>>14813539
I'm a fucking undergrad, and my experience at college made me hate academia.
>you cast blame for all of that community's failures and crimes on others.
It's the exact opposite of what I said.

>>14812848
>planes fly because Bernoulli
>dogs evolved from the eurasian wolf
>English descends from Old English of Beowulf fame

>>14813539
>failures and crimes
>irresponsible, untrustworthy, manipulative, dishonest
cynical mistrust much?

Where is the COAM is bullshit nigger? He should show up in this thread, right?

>>14812971
Nathan, go home, you're drunk.

>>14812848
Survival research, or just questioning materialism with empirival data in general. You can not tell this to normie and NPC academics. Nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, gets normie and NPC academics more uncomfortable and/or riled up than the idea that near-death experiences are ACTUALLY real, and that there is good reason to think that they are and that we should take them seriously. You _will_ be screamed at by your professors if you persist in maintaining its validity, that is, after they have gone through the first new truth phase of laughing at you.

Here is an extremely persuasive argument for why near-death experiences (NDEs) are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It makes a huge deal about the fact that near-death experiencers (NDErs) are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Statistics collected ... show that the "deeper" the NDE ... the greater the percentage of those who come away certain of the existence of the afterlife. Among those with the deepest experiences ... 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. And so would you, me, or anyone, including the most dogmatic atheists and skeptics, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this puny little experience of life on Earth we have now. When you dream and wake up, you immediately realize that life is more real than your dream. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep, deep dream and the NDE world is the real world.

>>14812848
I don't know if anyone has said it yet, but there is the "central dogma of molecular biology" which is that DNA makes RNA and RNA makes Proteins.

>>14814935
The NDE rabbit hole is deep...
Nobody tells you about the horrifying ones.

>>14813281
Epigenetics aren't real

>>14814935
>can't OBSERVE
>somehow OBVIOUS

>>14814935
Materialists don't even acknowledge the existence of the soul, which is necessary for a NDE. The soul's existence is the most obvious feature of experience there is. There is an inner "you" which you can't see, can't touch, can't measure empirically, but you know it's there. It's staring every materialist in the face, but they refuse to acknowledge it, or they write it off as some epiphenomenon of the brain, rather than the most fundamental phenomenon of our reality.

>>14812900
>There is no dogma in science,
Nice dogma. How does it feel to contradict yourself in the very first sentence?

>>14813308
so what you're saying is that the idea of the one human species is unscientific dogma

>>14815451
Taxonomy in general is largely unscientific dogma.

>>14812848
As far as I can tell it's mostly related to race / eugenics these days, you'll get people unironically arguing that eugenics doesn't work when he have used it to great effects on dogs.

>>14813596
lurk more

>>14812848
whether rei is better than ashoka

pro tip: rei is best girl

>>14812900
found the hack

>>14813027
>no one knows
I know

>>14813312
so heat doesnt really exist? Who told me this malicious lie about heat and for what prupose?

>>14815705
These two things about eugenics are never considered:
>it can be completely voluntary and non-coercive, e. g., substantial payments for sterilisation and generous payments to childless women decreasing with each child
>such incentives/disincentives would reduce poverty and increase intelligence even if poverty and intelligence are completely due to environment
>>14815053
That's the thing about philosophy of science principles: they can be turned on themselves.
>>14815855
Not in the same sense as the tree in my front garden. It's a reification. Unnominalised, we're really talking about how fast objects are moving

>>14812848
IQ is definitely not inheritable and you definitely cannot notice patterns between race and general IQ

>>14813244
And yet scientists cannot reproduce this presumably simple step under lab controlled conditions; let alone natural conditions.

>>14813255
Unfounded claim. No evidence to support this whatsoever as the simplest lifeform we actually have evidence of requires 450+

>>14813509
>It's possible the gamma ray signatures could be produced by some other mechanism(s
Like every mass being a black hole that, due to DeBroglie's equation causes the photon's frequency to intensify into a gamma ray?

A spin-2 boson? Aka a graviton?

Yeah we already went over this......

round earth
It's never been proven!
still waiting for a physical measurement of curvature!

>>14816865
>reproduce this presumably simple step under lab controlled conditions;
Wouldn't name that spontan abiogenesis either

>>14812900
If you're just a naïve undergrad I forgive you, but if you're a Reddit pseud you need to go back NOW.

>>14812848
Earth is flat.

>>14812848
That the earth is a globe.

>>14812848

>>14812900
>There is no dogma in science
It would be more correct to say, "There should be no dogma in science".

>>14812924
What alternative is there? It'd only be 'dogma' if there were a theory that was better but they refused to use it.

>>14812900
Meanwhile, a taxonomist: "idk what's going on but this makes sense"
Geneticist: "brah you are wrong"
Prove it
I can't, can you?
NOPE

>>14812848
there is a soft and hard version of this but basically it's the idea that everything that exists has a natural explanation. also known as metaphysical naturalism. you can cope by saying science doesn't start with the presumption of naturalism bit it discovers it but philosophyfags might not like this one

>>14812900
Grim

>>14812848

>>14812848
linguistic determinism and general RQ's related to language.
>logographic vs. alphabetic writing systems
>illiteracy in healthy adults and how they view the world
>case/inflection inventory and expressional ability
>the formation process of new root words
>etc.

>>14822664
basically anything that may put the legitimacy of the English/Latin and alphabetic language paradigm at risk

>>14820090
a greek nigga proved it was round like 3k years ago using two stick

>>14812848
questioning the big bang is a career ender in astronomy, same goes for darwin in biology. doubting einstein isn't permitted in the world of physics unless you are doing so to promote the views and theories of a different jew. biology also won't let you doubt the 9001 genders theory

>>14812900
>he doesn't know about publication bias

>>14823208
Well it's a career ender because it's utterly retarded. I suppose there are similar things in all disciplines. Advocating miasma theory will end your career in medical research. Alchemy will end your chemistry career. Doubting that the earth moves around the sun will end your career in astronomy. Young earth bullshit will end your career as an archaeologist or geologist. Doubting the moon landing will probably not get you far in rocket/space science.