/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes.

>>4469407
Why do people keep making edits of this image?

>>4469439

Undergrad physics major detected.

>>4469407

Yes, that is true

I hate that picture and I hate XKcancerD.

>my field of studies is better than yours

>implying they aren't all equally useful

OP is homosex.

>>4469467
This.

There is no difference between a PhD in "hard" sciences and a PhD in social sciences.

>>4469470
Unless it's psychology or sociology.
Then you have a PhD in Pseudoscience

>>4469475
>what is sociological methodology

Way to prove your incompetence when discussing this topic.

>>4469475
>implying that means it's less useful

>>4469407
This seems accurate to me. It's ok, i'm a math student so i'm allowed to say that without being careerist.

>>4469475
economics?

>"A mathematician decides on the rules of the game, and then plays it. A physicist plays the game, trying to find out the rules."
What a lame way of putting it. Here's a better a way:
A physicist studies our world, a mathematician studies all possible worlds.

I see your chart doesn't extend far enough to the right to take Engineers on board.

Anyway, we're far too busy having careers, making a difference and earning a fucktonne of cash.

>>4469486
I think the first way was better.

>>4469489
>Anyway, we're far too busy sucking cock
Fix'd it for you.

>>4469475
Why is there always that one guy who has to belittle social sciences without knowing anything about them?

>>4469454
Actually, my undergrad was maths, though my PhD is in mathematical physics

>>4469499
Isn't this the paradigm on /sci/?

does a PhD in economics equate to a PhD in sociology? Economics is a lot more mathematical than sociology and still uses the same methodology.

>>4469510
Yes, they are all equal. PhD is PhD, no matter what subject.

All subjects in Academia are important you pleb. We're all working to further human knowledge together.

>>4469512
0/10

>>4469470
In usefulness, you're correct.

Difficulty in achievement however? That's where that statement goes out the window.

I have a question /sci/ a question so stupid that I can't make a thread about it so instead, I'll ask it in this stupid thread. How do I find a % of a %? Example
33% are threads are retarded.
15% of those threads have useful information somewhere in them. How many retarded threads have useful information? (srs)

>>4469499
Because they actually know about them, but think they're nonsense.

>>4469534

Son, you learn this when you're like 12 in europe, get on our level

>>4469536

0/10

>>4469532
>difficulty of achievement

A PhD in psychology or sociology is even harder work than a PhD in physics. I think you have no idea how hard social sciences are. You should take a course in them.

>>4469534
threads*0.33*0.15

I know a girl who got a degree in sociology.

Now she's a CIA agent but tells everyone she travels around the country to teach the TSA at airports about the latest protocols and technology. She works for Lockheed Martin.

Explain that shit /sci/

>>4469549

>CIA agent
>Works for Lockheed Martin

Pick one

>>4469566
>Lockheed Martin
>Hiring sociology majors
Pick one

>>4469543
Ok how do I find the percent compared to original. Going back to original,
50% retarded thread
33% useful info in said retarded thread
What's the percentage of useful info in retarded thread over all threads.

>>4469486 A physicist studies our world, a mathematician studies all possible worlds.

You're using the word possible incorrectly.

>>4469589
You're using the word incorrectly incorrectly.

>>4469589
How so?