/sci/ - Science & Math

5) Tripfag circlejerks

yes, split an already slow board into 4 slower boards

that's a great idea

I'm in favor of this. /lit/ is too shitty for proper filosofy or non-natural science discussions.

>>4635542
Slower boards is a good thing.

1) For any subject that's a good idea
2) Tripfag circle jerk waiting to happen
3) Atheists trolling Atheists by pretending to be religious
4) Tripfag circle jerk waiting to happen

1) Science & Math
2) IQ Fundie Presents: Qualia - The Untold Story

Homework is okay as long as it's science related.
Career advice and school stories are the real cancer.

dumb ass

There is clearly no need in almost dead 5 splits of /sci/.

Do you have trouble keeping up with the threads on /sci/?

No.

GTFO

>>4635542

A science board is supposed to be EXTREMELY SLOW.
We should mostly have a bunch of gigantic threads discussing something concerning science/math.
Do you remember the ATLAS physicists who used to come here? Yeah.
Then the homework board would be several little threads solving some shit and that's it.

>3) Religious views
GTFO, theres even a /sci/ specific rule saying religion isnt welcome here

A homework help board would be good...

>>4635563

On this day and you still can't interpret simple sentences?
Oh, EK, how can someone be so silly?

>>4635577

It will take religious talk out of /sci/. It certainly concern us.

Pretty sure moot doesn't care one lick for /sci/
We are a pretty shitty board. That said, you're here forever.

>>4635568
moot can make a religion board, but it certainly wont have anything to do with /sci/

Fucking email him. He doesn't read /sci/.

>>4635581

I believe he cares, even a little. At least he added jsMath. If he was totally oblivious we wouldn't even have that

>>4635582
No, it won't. No one on /sci/ wants to seriously discuss religion. It's all trolls.

>>4635587

Then the trolls would leave to troll the religious board. And when discussing on new /sci/ everyone would be aggressive and sage while saying >>>/rel/
Also, the mods would be more strict, as garbage science and trolls would be much rarer and result in more bans

>>4635591
>/sci/
>mods

Once in a blue moon.

>>4635597
We have them, but they ban the wrong posters. Blatant rule violations stay up, while harmless humor gets you banned.

>>4635597

I believe a REAL science discussion board, with other alternatives for religious,phylosophy,homework,etc. would be pretty capable of moderating itself

I really do think we could use a Religion & Philosophy board, if only to have a place to point to when dealing with religious and philosophical trolls.

>>4635605

> Religion & Philosophy

Do you mean, as in the same board?

NO NO NO NO NO!

why does sagan look like mourinho

>>4635606
Fuck yeah,

There is no real philosophy here on /sci/. The threads you label as "philosophy" are in fact just edgy "hurr durr" by underage retards. Don't confuse this with intellectual discussion.

>>4635608
Who the fuck is mourinho?

>>4635612
A new board would probably bring other audience. I bet there are MANY people on other boards that would participate in an real philosophy board

>>4635612
Delicious scotsman bullshit.

It's *all* philosophy.

>>4635563

Carl Sagan demonstrated the Big Bong Theory.

>>4635615
>durr

See? That's what I meant.

>>4635613
>mfw he doesnt know who mourinho is

what about them 21 grams, OP?

He should split it into two boards, science and math.

The pop science retards on this board drown everything else out. I don't come here very often anymore now and I get the feeling that the majority of the mathfags don't either.

>>4635612
A) That's philosophy in a nutshell.
B) That's exactly the kind of stuff you would find /phi/.

>>4635629
shit, wrong thread

I oppose this notion

>>4635618
That's not even a coherent response, let alone a witty comeback.

But yes, dumb shit is philosophy too, whether you like it or not. Your conflation of "philosophy" and "intellectual discussion" is fallacious.

>>4635557
ATLAS physicists? Who? When? Where? Why? How?

>>4635563
great understanding of the rules, faggot

you cant make religion vs science threads, religion threads, as long as they are science related (somehow) are ok

carry on being a fag

>>4635597
I'm 14 and I've never been banned from /sci/

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>4635639

Some years ago there were some who used to come to /sci/ and discuss some things regarding ATLAS and physics. Why? Because we sucked but not so much.

>>4635638
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
>Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.
>critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

No, "dumb shit" is not philosophy.

>isolate homework help into its own board
>no one goes there except people who need help
>no help is received
great job idiot

>>4635647

People don't help here either. And I bet there'd be some tripfags who'd love to help in order to show how smart they are and such

>>4635650
>People don't help here
This.

When homework threads get answered here, it's not because /sci/ wants to be helpful. It's because someone posted a wrong solution and aspies can't resist correcting him.

>>4635644
Yeah, that's cool and all, but an attempt at (or pretense of) critical thinking or rational reasoning doesn't prevent from from talking dumb shit. You can follow a perfectly logical line of reasoning and still end up in steaming poopie, if your presuppositions are retarded. Your various "proofs" of dualism are great examples of this.

>>4635661

Indeed. Even in this thread a guy asked for help. >>4635565

>>4635662
That's right. But shitposting is not philosophy. When someone posts something wrong and lets himself convince by rational and logical arguments that he was wrong, then this is okay. But people spouting idiotic beliefs and throwing around insults when being corrected, that's not philosophy anymore.

>>4635662
Wait a sec, I didn't see your last sentence. My proofs of dualism are correct. If you think otherwise, tell me how they are wrong.

firstly,
OP's idea is dumb. no.
secondly,
/sci/ is not shitty, it's the best board on 4chan. Have some proud my fellow aspies.

It seems we have 2 groups of faggots here,

Those who think that a /homework/ board would magically transform /sci/ into in-depth scientific discovery threads and maybe even win a Nobel prize, or two.

And those who are just lazy to skip over an occasional "homework" thread and convinced that the homework posts prevent them from seeing the truly in-depth scientific discovery threads.

Both groups are faggots.

>>4635687
>/sci/ is not shitty

>>4635689
Both don't realize that homework is much less of a cancer than career advice, school general, sci fi etc

>>4635695
THIS

>>4635682
Your arguments usually presuppose that if something is undetectable by current scientific means, then this mere fact necessitates dualism. This is nonsense. It *could* be indicative of dualism, but it could also simply point to a shortcoming in the means of measurement currently available to us. Your argument that qualia necessarily have to exist, because they can be experienced, but not communicated, is similarly flawed. This, too, could simply point to a linguistic shortcoming, not a dualistic phenomenon.

Anyway, shit's not science, yo.

>>4635695

Perhaps someone should do a study on Carrier advice, School general, etc

What /sci/ needs is a mod. Somebody that can and will ban the shit out of anybody that dares shit up this board. We don't need four new boards, we just need a mod.

>>4635699
>if something is undetectable by current scientific means,
>shortcoming in the means of measurement currently available to us
You misunderstood what qualia are. They are inherently NEVER detectable by scientific means.

>qualia necessarily have to exist
How do you suppose to prove that you are self-aware?

>simply point to a linguistic shortcoming
I explained why this is not the case. Qualia are the subjective things that CANNOT be communicated.

Summary: You are too stupid to understand a chain of arguments and instead of accepting your utter stupidity you insult me.

>>4635709

>You misunderstood what qualia are. They are inherently NEVER detectable by scientific means.

Long time ago, scientist believed earth was inherently flat.

>>4635715
That's an entirely different thing. Back then we lacked knowledge of something physical and we were able to correct an incorrect explanation by means of physical science. Qualia are not something physical. Subjectivity cannot be accessed objectively. Lrn2science.

>>4635715
No, they didn't. Look it up.

IQ Fundie doesn't ever show qualia are in fact different from person to person. only that we can never know if they are the same. these are different things.

>>4635553

lol'ed

>>4635724
>>4635739

What if there is some quantum-shit breakthrough and it's all of a sudden detectable.

I believe the scientists from the Scientology department are working with such devices already!

>>4635739
They don't even need to be different. The impossibility to know whether they are different or not, or even to know whether others have them, is enough to show that they are beyond science.

>>4635759
No "quantum-shit breakthrough" can make subjectivity objective.

>>4635762
if they are not different then they don't exist in any meaningful way

>>4635765
You underestimate the power of religious bullshit. It can make anything objective.

>>4635768
There is no reason to restrict "existence" to "physical existence". Do your thoughts "exist"? Does your self-awareness "exist"?

>>4635773
i didn't mean physical existence

i meant any existence

if qualia are the same for everybody, the thing that makes them qualia, there subjectiveness, has gone.

>>4635779
No, it hasn't gone. They are still subjective in that they can only be experienced by the individual but not be communicated.

Please divide /sci/ in 4 boards

1) Career / school advice
2) Science/Math Discussion
3) Religion and philosophy
4) Rule 34 on EK

>>4635781
no, if we all experience the same thing, by definition it is not a subjective experience

Requesting new boards /peakoil/ and /sunsmadeoflavaandicecolliding/

>>4635791
Then please show me your definition of "subjective" and how it relies on difference to other peoples' experience.

>>4635799
a few from the web

relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view

>>4635803
Both of these don't state that a person's subjective experience has to differ from those of others.

>>4635805
forgive the elipses, i know you just love them

>...as distinguished from general or universal experience.
>...as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view

if qualia were the same they would be a universal experience, and independent of the point of view

(though i completely accept we can never know if this is the case or not)

i have to go to the pub now, if you learn to read, we can talk later.

ps, i gave you your name, so feel somewhat responsible for your extended troll

Did IQ Fundie just get toldasaurusrex?

>>4635813
>elipses
It's okay, we're not doing math here.

>independent of the point of view
That's the point. Qualia require consciousness to be experienced. They can't be reproduced by a machine. So they are not idependent, let alone objective.

>i gave you your name
I'm pleased to talk to my creator.

>>4635820
Nope.

Only needs 2

Philosophy & Religion
Science & Math
and the homeworkfags can suck a dick