/sci/ - Science & Math

>Putting native americans on the same level as australian aboriginals
Atleast they crafter simple tools like tomahawks. Aboriginals never invented anything except "stick"

>>>/pol/

>When are leftists going to get out of science

lol'd
leftists are the only ones intelligent enough to do science.

you complain about racial stupidity and ignore your own conservative stupidity. Conservatives are too stupid to science.

that's irony.

>>4607124
I didn't put them on the same level. I just meant they were both significantly less capable than europeans. Australian Aboriginals would be one of the least intelligent, followed by natives of Papua New Guinea.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

>>4607120
Have you ever seen an intelligent OP? Have you ever seen a tripfag scientist? Didn't think so. Let's face facts. Not all humans are equal. These people had thousands of years to build a civilization, and failed on even the most insignificant levels. When are faggots going to get out of science so we can have a proper objective study of different posting species?

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Some faggot.

>>4607126
I made a post last week about being annoyed by leftists claiming they have ownership of science. Everyone rubbished this, but seems pretty evident in your post...

>hello there, I'm an obvious troll

>>4607132
In the US science is done entirely by our political left.

this isn't a mystery or a point of argument.
our conservative right is too stupid to participate.

>>4607120
>Have you ever seen a troll who has ever seen a troll who has ever seen a troll who has ever seen a troll who has ever seen a troll who has ever seen ...
No, not really.

>>4607138
Source please. Or does your bias just incline you to believe that every scientist is a leftist?

>>4607120

Scientiffic evolution is more about luck than anything. you get one intelligent individual whom pioneers in his field and thus pushes his entire race forward. some races simply wasent lucky enough/the person is not heard etc.

im not saying there is not any difference between the races in terms of intelligence, cause im pretty sure there is. but mainly its all about luck.

>>4607120
I like how your argument is based on anecdotes.

>>4607141
I'm sure you've seen it before, but whatever.
I'm off either way, so enjoy.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

white europeans had 50,000 years to build a civilisation, but spent 46,000 of those playing with sticks. so we could infer that aborigines and native americans may well have developed if contact hadn't occurred.

indeed native americans did have several primitive civilisations in meso america.

>>4607145
As an evolutionist I agree. However leftists claim to be 'for' science yet completely rubbish you when you try to demonstrate how not all humans are as advanced as eachother.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

Scientific research: progress

Conservatives: oppose progress

It's not difficult to see why left-wing politics would be prevalent in science people.

white europeans had 50,000 years to build a civilisation, but spent 46,000 of those playing with sticks. so we could infer that aborigines and native americans may well have developed if contact hadn't occurred.

Source please, or do you seriously believe white europeans have been around far longer, and native Americans just magically evolved elsewhere?

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

>>4607132
There's an easy fix, to make them more capable of science, stop the right from being so stupid and hung up on religion and propaganda.

Of course, that would soon make them democrats.
Religion and current mode of thought for most republicans id not conducive to dealing with science or the real world.

>>4607120

>different racial species

Confirmed for stupid.

>>4607120
>Have you ever seen an intelligent native American?

Hi.

>>4607155
I'm more in line with OP's way of thinking.
I believe some people are just born stupid.
they won't be scientists just like they won't be liberals, because they're too stupid for either.

I just like how OP is pretending to be one of the stupid people complaining about stupid people.

I think we should kill or castrate him to prevent the spread of such stupidity.

>>4607152

Science should not be affected by politics in the first place. a true scientist shall remain unbiased. and that is my main problem with leftist scientists, they tend to be very biased towards issues of their political ideology, hence global warming and such abominations of science.

>>4607120
>My reasoning is not correct - Reality Check
fix'd that for ya

>>4607161
>hence global warming and such abominations of science.

But that isn't an "abomination of science". What you've done is to reject scientific findings for political reasons while simultaneously accusing scientists of having fabricated global warming for political reasons.

>>4607153
>needs source for common knowledge

just google cromagnon man for how long we've been in europe

civilisation began 4000 yrs ago

subtract

>>4607161
>global warming is bias
Is it someone infused with republicunt propaganda, or is it someone infused with republicunt propaganda?

>>4607171
and how long have Africans been in Africa?

>>4607169

No, if you look at some of the leading evidence in terms of global warming it would only take a high school chemistry student to realise that global warming is utter bullshit.

Global warming only serves one purpose, and that is to favour a leftist government with all their enviormental laws and taxes.

>>4607176
see the problem is that there's only one of your stupid ass while everyone else here is one of your 'leftists.'

you're going to lose just because you'll waste all night trying to reply to ten or fifteen anons that are smarter than you and probably type faster.

>>4607176
I'm inclined to believe the evidence for global warming. However I also understand that what enivonmentalists propose, will have little to no impact. Geo-engineering is the solution. But yes you are right, Global warming is being used as a tool to promote a leftist regime.

please see the picture attached for real solution to GW.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

>>4607176
>the leading evidence in terms of global warming
... like the ice melting, duh.

>>4607173

No, this is someone who took chemistry at A-level and was forced through the green chemistry and chemistry in the atmosphere "chapters".

They deliberately withhold information from you to make their own point seem logical. however, if you were to look a bit deeper into the subject you would quickly realise that there is far more to it than they tell you.

>>4607176
>high school chemistry student is a more reliable authority than 95% of the world's climatologists
Dude, I'd say you went full retard, but that would be an understatement.

>>4607175
don't you accept out of africa?

because prior to 50,000 yrs ago the ancestors of europeans were in africa too, playing with sticks

we have been modern man for 100,000 years

some modern man developed civilisation in the last 4000 yrs, some didn't.

who knows why. intelligence is probably way down the list of reasons. living somewhere suited to discovering agriculture instead of hunter gathering seems the most likely reason.

This is the sort of evidence people would use to "prove" global warming.

>>4607184
Not sure if you are, how they say, "Trolling". But otherwise you seem like you've completely missed the point.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

Reality check, hate to say it but I kind of agree with you.

How many atheletes are of african descendency and how many Noble prize winners have been of european descendency.

However, what if it was discovered that Jews were much smarter than everyone else? Would you like to be an inferior human.

What do we do with the inferior humans? Stop them breeding? Ok let's neuter OP.

Great plan, oh wait there goes are genetic diversity, we're all fucked.

>>4607180
That was good, now do a fifty year stint as a climatologist and publish as many peer-reviewed papers as the majority of climatologists who say that anthropogenic climate change is real and then I might actually respect you as much as I do Lord Monckton.

Which isn't much, granted, but it's a hell of a lot more than I respect a kid who doesn't yet know one percent of what he thinks he knows and yet thinks he's the go-to guy about climate change.

tl;dr: your words make me laugh

>>4607187
2/10, i thought you were serious

>>4607185

but this is the sort of graph a real scientist would look at.

this is only some of the bullshit the enviormental scientists are trying to convey. theres also the "depletion of ozone", which is infact a reversible reaction which aslo creates ozone.

Man is truly arrogant if they are to belive that they can have such a great impact on nature. in our current standing nature holds far more power than that of man.

>>4607188
ashkanazi jews are intellectually superior. proven fact

>>4607188
Now someone is getting it. There is no shame in being less intelligent, just as there is no shame in being less athletic. This is just the broad array of humans that live on this lonely planet.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

>>4607194
I like how you're too stupid to see the fallacies there...
or you're pretending to be.

fun stuff

>>4607185
And this is the kind of evidence people use to debunk global warming.

>>4607196
what about people like you though? that aren't black and thus aren't athletic, but also aren't leftists and thus aren't intelligent?

where's your redeeming quality?

>>4607181
Your picture is of some blatantly ignorant climate skeptic, and then his arguments are retorted by climate change facts. Looks like leftist propaganda to me (And yes I DO believe in GW).

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

>>4607202
>>4607196
>>4607187
>>4607178
>>4607153
>>4607150
>>4607127
>>4607120


does this nigga seriously have a signature?

>>4607202
>global warming is real, but it's still leftist propaganda
How's that doublethink working out for you? Extra superplusgood.

>>4607203
seems so

report him for trolling cancer

i don't understand this thread

leftsism is good, but this guy seems to be implying it's bad

girls laughing i guess

OP is either an idiot or a troll; in either case it isn't worthwhile to debate his points. That said...

You ought to know better than to conflate correlation with causation. Especially when intelligence is terribly hard to quantify and far more easily explained as a product of one's environment.

The claim that certain races are inherently less intelligent is, in addition to being a paper-thin euphemism for "I'm a racist", a hypothesis explaining the observation that some races appear to be more intelligent. Even if we ignore the flaws in making this observation (it's hardly empirical), we still cannot take it as anything more than a HYPOTHESIS.

Is this hypothesis backed by any experimental data? No. Is it the most parsimonious? No. Is it an excuse to bitch about how you feel society ought to be more accepting of your uniquely backward brand of idiocy? That's my hypothesis.

You can't believe in evolution without believing in racial differences.

>>4607216
>Is this hypothesis backed by any experimental data? No
Yes. Pic related.
Go away liberal.

>>4607209
How is leftism good? Find me on /pol/ and we will debate this.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

>>4607217
of course, but you could also believe race is as relevant some other phenotype that has a geographical correlation. like lactose tolerance say.

>>4607219

>implying this is a controlled experiment

Clearly, you're not going to let trifles like science get in the way of believing whatever the hell you want. I admire your faith.

>>4607221
>debate
>pol

lol no.

pol is for the mentally ill.

and please kill that highschooler sig.

>>4607224
So answer me this, you firmly believe in evolution, yet you deny that peoples separated for thousands of years long enough to evolve completely different appearances, could not have a single possible mental difference?

Denial. You're probably black.

>>4607225

We know for a fact that people have evolved different appearances. We do not know for a fact that they have evolved mental differences. Whether it's possible or not has no bearing on whether it's actually happened.

Classic self-deluding reasoning. You're probably religious.

>>4607225
they could have, yes.

>>4607227
>We do not know for a fact that they have evolved mental differences.
We pretty much do. Blacks and Abbos adopted and raised in white environments still perform worse, there have been many tests on this. Live in denial.

>>4607243

>tests

From what I've seen in this discussion, your idea of evidence is statistics from experiments that don't even attempt to control extraneous variables. Probably because they weren't even designed to test the claims you're making. So forgive me if I'm dismissive of whatever it is you're citing as "evidence".

What you call denial is called scientific rigor by anyone of even basic education.

>>4607248
No you're just in denial, the evidence is irrefutable and you have to grasp at straws.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
Time and time again experiences are done proving the same thing and the PC patrol dismisses it as false.

>>4607252

>one study that fails to even define race better than "cultural association" means my sweeping claim that whole populations have experienced specific genetic change is definitely true. I am perfectly aware that a great amount of peer-reviewed evidence is required for a hypothesis to become theory, and am not at all content to call my beliefs fact and wait for the first data to emerge that agrees with me.

>Humans have different levels of intelligence, let's face it.
I agree.

OP must have seen one of those porn comics by John Persons and got scared.

Oh god, so much faggotry here, OP is a massive faggot who thinks his ''race'' is superior, just as every fucking civilization. Development depends on so many fucking shit OP, Africans didn't have the enviromental advantage europeans had to develop their technology, but they aren't less intelligent just for that.
North Americans were lucky as well, their land had nothing of interest to British so they let them free to do the hell they wanted, however, in south America it was full of resources so they were exploited to the very bones.
There are historical differences, such as genetical differences, but they clearly don't affect intelligence.

>>4607270
>advantages
Don't forget pressure. Some Pressure is also needed for development of civilization. Too much of it can again cause bad things.

>>4607270

>evolution

>having anything to do with the british empire other than the fact that darwin came from it

nope nope nope nope nope

>>4607271
Right, for example, the lack of plain lands in greece forced them to develop navigation and commerce (is that the word?)

>>4607273
Wat?

>>4607276
Yep. And while some injuns developed highly advanced civilizations in the mountains and arid regions, the plains injuns largely remained as nomadic tribes.

Blacks are ridiculous as thinkers. In the physics department of my university there's one black student. He's relatively old and probably stuck with second term calculus. He also looks like a typical Sambo caricature. No one ever talks to him.

Ok, seriously. What's with race posts in 4chan lately? Also, since when /sci/ became /pol/?

>>4607289
>No one ever talks to him.
that's actually kinda sad

I know an Australian Aboriginal mathematician.