/sci/ - Science & Math

> "Its only a theory."

>"I study zoology"

>Any creationist argument against science

Lord, forgive me, I have sinned

the experiment supported the theory so its fact

''I understand Quantum Mechanics''.

"science proves."

'it's true'

>"infinity is not a number"

Schrodinger proved that a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time!

>>4949786
Schrodinger was an animal abuser

>"It's science!"

>"They say you can live forever off omega 3, no carbs and antioxidants"

>Now, I'm not a physicist/chemist/biologist/doctor/etc, but I'm sure that...!
>Many studies have shown that homeopathy does work!
>It's like, how can we be sure? Nobody has ever done a study on it!

Well, there's no proof that homeopathic medicine doesn't work

>deep sea colonization

I feel like alternative medicines are just so much more trustworthy than lab stuff. I mean natural means that it evolved to be useful to us.

consciousness

Bacon number 4
Erdos number 5
reporting in

Also
>"I could never..."

I'm agnostic.

Chemicals are bad!

>"Oh yeah? Prove X is bullshit!"

"When would I ever use this in real life?"

Global warming is a hoax

>>4949834
That and
>"So? Who cares? Unrelated issue No. 2012 is more important anyway!"

>>4949848

"Who cares about space? We should be spending that money on the military!"

>>4949861
In that same breath.

>"I hate nuclear energy 'cause they're evil and can be used in wars"
>"Thorium? What's that? Are you trying to change the subject?"

>>4949666
>who cares if research is useful? It'd be fun!
Far too few people actually say this about any science.

>>4949838
OP's prompt was to say something a person with no scientific knowledge would say, not say the truth.

>>4949838
It is not a hoax. The sun drives the climate, currently in a warming phase of an interglacial period in the current ice age.

Here's what a typical non-scientist believes:
> 4 out of 5 scientists agree with ...
Science has nothing to do with consensus. It is not some kind of "democracy." 99 percent of scientists can be wrong, absent all of the evidence. The "consensus" used to be that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Human arrogance knows no bounds.

"Race is a social construct."

Actually, social constructionism itself is anti-empiricism and anti-rationality.

>>4949878
>Human arrogance knows no bounds.
>states the majority of scientist are wrong because he's sure his position is right

>>4949904
I have no position on the subject, just said a majority of scientists CAN be wrong, not ARE wrong, dummy.

When the Church was in charge in the good old days, any scientist had to agree with the flat-earth-geocentric theory or they wouldn't eat ... or worse.

>>4949890
That graph doesn't apply to modern day African-Americans because their bloodlines have had caucasoid blood injected into them at some point during 400 years. They're not pure Africans, they just posess their visual traits because most of African visual traits like curly hair, dark skin, brown eyes etc. etc. are dominant genes.

>>4949963

Actually, they possess those traits because they are only about 10-20% white.

Black isn't as dominant as most people think.

>>4949970
In any case, be it 50% white or 20% white, that graph cannot be used when arguing for or against the claim of "race is a social construct" when dealing with racial problems inside US.

>>4949925
it doesn't matter if most of them CAN be wrong, you still have to listen to the majority unless there's a good reason otherwise. Being smart is making the best decision possible with the information available. Most politicians aren't scientist that have time to research the issue themselves. so what can they do? they ask scientist who ARE involved in the field what they think. If the majority of them think it's not real, then rejecting legislation based on their opinions is a perfectly reasonable option. there's nothing wrong with citing scientific consensus

>>4949878
We didn't used to think the world was flat, that was an idea conjured by an american author.

Heliocentrism was common knowledge though, then again science challenged that hundreds of years before it was accepted.

>>4949878
Also sorry but consensus IS how science works.
CRM values are calculated through consensus. Research needs to be independently verified by the scientific community and a consensus drawn.

Crawl out of your little republican hole and go to a damn library. Start with the stuff for middle schoolers and work up from there. You weren't paying enough attention in school.

>>4949979

It can, since they are still mostly black. It can also be used against any retard who claims that race doesn't exist at all.

> What non-scientists believe...
Taxes can solve environmental problems:
http://www.carbontax.org/
> A permanent and increasing U.S. carbon tax will reduce the emissions that are driving global warming and generate revenue to help close our looming budget gaps.
What happens when we solve the problem? How will we close those looming budget gaps?

>>4949819
I wish I could ask you where you got your numbers from, but you probably wouldn't want to reveal snippets of your identity on /sci/.

Ambiguous hints?

>>4950035
>implying we don't just jump from idea to idea already

>>4949666
>I'm a republican

and

>I'm a conservative

>>4949666
>I'm voting for Romney

>>4949666
>I'm a christian
>The bible is all the proof I need

>>4950091
>>4950082
> Non-scientists detected
When politics comes through the door, science goes out the window.

>>4950116
bullshit

in US almost all scientists are happily NOT REPUBLICAN and NOT CONSERVATIVE.

>>4950126
im conservative. def not neo-con.
also i study genetics, believe in evolution, and go to catholic church every week

tl;dr: i am an outlier

>>4950042
Differential geometry and Roger Moore

>>4950415
I love how this religious faggots point out they believe in evolution like that makes them a fucking genious.
Lawl I beliewez evolutions, I soo science right?