/sci/ - Science & Math

PARTY TIME

13.7 billion

If you liked that programme ... find one that horizon did called "Infinity" on youtube

Im a keen physicist and was never that interested in maths... but that programme was really really good

>>1738540

This one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q4mm9r-PLw

>>1738540
Really? See I thought it was awful, probably the worst in the last series. Another friend of mine said it was good though.

My friend done an internship at BBC's science department and had to come up for a show concept, something mathematical, and pitched the idea for that show, she didn't like the final product either.

ITT: Awesome British scientists

>>1738580
Dawkins is no more a scientist than Sagan. He's a communicator of science.

>>1738598
Fine bear with me...

>>1738598
Dawkins is a published scientist, he only stopped lecturing at university about 2 years ago (I went to his last ever Biology lecture, even though I do maths)

>>1738603
I mean he doesn't do any research. He's a scientist only in name

>>1738607
He is both a scientist and a science communicator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins#Academic_papers

>>1738598
Is this more to your liking?

>>1738607
But only recently has he stopped doing biology research/supervising theses.

It's a bit cheap to take the title "scientist" away from someone who held it for about 40 years, and has now changed to bringing science to the public.

>>1738614
That will do

>>1738607
>He isn't aware of The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype and that Dawkins holds an actual Ph.D.

>>1738580
>>1738614

... no Newton...?

What the fuck /sci/

implying any of the people pictured here stand up to the real scientists of antiquity

>>1738662
>Darwin
>Newton
DERP

>>1738653

Considered it, but I could only be bothered to paste in one pic.

>>1738527

Its 14 o clock

Britain is obviously godtier for scientists/mathematicians.

Newton
Jenner
Herschel
Priestley
Maxwell
MARY SOMERVILLE (my college is named after her) ((the term scientist was invented to describe her))
Dorothy Hodgkin (Also went to my college)
Watt
Darwin
Dawkins
Dirac
Faraday
Bacon
Hawking

etc..

mmmmm.....bacon

>>1738690
>Dawkins

u srs?

>>1738527
Time is relative.

>>1738690
haha that's a funny list you got there son.
prepare your anus

>>1738690

Trying to think of an AMerican who can compare to any of those.

Are you even trying, America?

Inb4 Einstein/Edison or that guy who flew a kite in a thunderstorm.

>>1738690

>Mary
>Dorothy
>scientist

>>1738703
Yes.

His contributions to ethology and evolutionary biology are massive.

>>1738710
Britfag here,
Witten is a good one.

>>1738662

Antiquity ended 1500 years ago, bro. I think Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Virchow, Pasteur, Maxwell, Heisenberg, and pretty much every great science came later.

I'll give the ancients Hipparchus, Archimedes, Eratosthenes and Aristotle, though.

>>1738714
Also John von Neumann and Richard Feynman.

>>1738715
You think he could stand next to Maxwell?

>>1738716

lol they women!! u so ranom anon

>>1738721
>>1738714 here
I don't think he can stand next to Maxwell; Maxwell is far too important. But he is a scientist worthy of some acclaim.

Dawkin's work on genetic justifications for social altruism was one of the absolute nails in anti-evolutionary arguments. It is not possible to understate how massive it was.

The dude is fucking LEGEND. An equivalent in physics would be someone like Feynman, seriously.

>>1738721
Someone else's greatness doesn't detract from his credibility.

>>1738737

I could be wrong, but I thought evolution was universally accepted by biologists over sixty years ago?

>>1738754
Accepted, yes, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a few difficulties still lurking in the background.

>>1738754
the dichotomy between genetic level and social level hadn't been resolved to anyone's real satisfaction

think about QM - most physicists had accepted it in the what, 1920s? But there were still HUGE questions about how the fuck it worked, right?

>>1738776

So, Dawkins' contribution was providing an evolutionary explanation for altruistic behavior? Didn't Arthur Schopenhauer beat him to that by 150 years?

>>1738789
I cannot tell if you're being facetious.

>>1738789
what, at a GENETIC level?

oooooooookaaaaaaaaay

>>1738797

Why the sage? In all seriousness, Schopenhauer plausibly explained seemingly self-sacrificial behavior in purely natural (non-normative) terms.

>>1738815
Are you choosing to ignore >>1738786 ?

>>1738819

Applying concepts like 'altruism' and 'egoism' to the behavior of genes is a category error.

>>1738815

Schopenhauer was a fucking pessimistic troll. He didn't give a shit about anyone, not even himself.

read moar schopenhauer

>>1738839

oh ok, i didn't realise you didn't know what you are talking about. thanks for clearing that up.

>>1738839

FUCKING OWNED

>>1738846

No kidding.

He explained romantic love and the suicidal behavior it frequently causes as an innate, irrational desire to propagate the species at any cost.

>>1738839
>He hasn't read The Selfish Gene

>>1738852
>>1738862

I leave ethical verbiage about selfishness to moralists, as it has no place in science. Dawkins could benefit from reading a little Ayer.

>>1738875

I think you just called Richard Dawkins a HACK

>>1738875
haha
oh wow

I know philosophy majors usually have a misplaced sense of importance towards their subject, but you sir, you take the cake.

>>1738881

I think you misconstrued my implication as an assertion.

>>1738875
>He is still unaware of the fact that The Selfish Gene is FILLED with Dawkins noting the caveats of using words such as "want" and "selfish" when referring to inherently unconscious entities such as genes.
>He still thinks that Dawkins uses "selfish" in a non-metaphorical sense
>He is still unaware that the first fucking chapter has Dawkins noting that, paraphrasing, obviously a gene isn't aware of anything or has any actual interests it is able to perceive, but that you can think of it as if it did, and that such terminology can be practical.
>He is still unaware that Dawkins defines a "selfish gene" to mean "a gene whose effects further the propagation of the gene", which in no way contains any ethical judgments.
>In short, he still hasn't fucking read the book.

>>1738896

>Title your book 'The Selfish Gene'
>Spend the entire book explaining that genes aren't properly selfish.

A man as busy making revolutionary discoveries as Dawkins hasn't the time to consult a thesaurus.

>>1738928
Well that settles it. You are a certified moron

>>1738941

And you've been trolled.

>>1738948
lolitrolu.jpeg

>>1738527

>>1738928
>Title your book The Selfish Gene
>Define the word selfish in the context of genes in the first chapter
>Explain that you've chosen the word because its common meaning "acting in one's own interest" is the closest you can get to what you wish to express, namely "a gene whose effects further its own propagation."
>He thinks all genes are inherently selfish according to Dawkins. (laughinggirls.jpg)
>He thinks a gene that meets the criteria in the definition of "selfish gene" isn't properly selfish, even though it is defined to be.

>>1738886

>I think you're laughing at my pompous, pesudo-intellectualized pretentious big-word-ism as actual profundity and substance.

You must be one of those coffee shop hipster douchbags who walks around with philosophy books in plain view not really to try and understand them, but just to show off how smart and cultured you are to other folks who really don't care and see your through bullshit facade, wishing you would just grow the fuck up and be an authentic person.

ITT: idle speculation about other posters

>evolution isn't deterministic
>genes aren't literally selfish, it's impossible for them to be
>readthebook.jpg

>>1739043

Time for you to get a watch

>>1739043

What do you mean it isn't "deterministic"?

Evolution is caused by response to a species' environment.

Their environment is deterministic...as is any living creature.

>>1739118
>He thinks mutations aren't pretty much random.
>He is unaware of the E. Coli long term evolution experiment

>>1738875

platitudes

>>1739178

>he doesn't believe in determinism

>>1739118
>isn't aware that mutations cause many different solutions to environmental pressures and species in different closed systems have evolved different solutions to the same problem

>irrationally/religously fixated on determinism as the answer to everything

>if truly believed in determinism would stop trying to persuade people of its truth as inherently self-contradictory

>creationist logic = supreme ignorance

>>1739212
>doesn't believe in quantum mechanics