/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5884717
I don't know how /sci/ might, but I know that I typically recognize pseudo intellectualism when someone is really interested in talking about ideas that they don't necessarily understand the origin of. For example, things like "what if your red is different from my red?" might be pseudo intellectualism if the person doesn't understand the real questions that the question relates to, i.e. fundamental ideas of human subjective experience.
another example: about 100% of discussion about philosophy quantum mechanical topics are also pseudo intellectual in that no one who I've met who knows anything about QM cares about its philosophy, including myself (by philosophy I mean, "if I don't see someone, are they in a superposition, or are they observing themselves, hurdurhurdur?").

If you're the one who asked that question in the Omegle screenshot, I'd say you're very guilty of pseudo-intellectualism.

>>5884731
>I typically recognize pseudo intellectualism when someone is really interested in talking about ideas that they don't necessarily understand the origin of. For example, things like "what if your red is different from my red?"

But that's just ignorant philosophizing. You kind of start doing that by default if you're at all inquisitive. But an intellectual knows when to pick up a book, rather than reinvent the wheel (in retarded form) and convince yourself that you're onto something.

No 1 cares about this OP your the only who cares about this pseudo intellectual bullshit because it somehow makes you feel good about yourself or gives you a sense of being better
Don't worry about fucking up in life OP no 1 really cares also Intellect is kind of hard to define objectively due to its broadness were all humans and at our core we have the same biological makeup and brain structure. IQ tests may measure how well you compute and how well you can take in and put out Information but this dosen't define Intellect OP also here's a lifehack OP
The world isn't about what you know or what you can do ( no 1s gonna care about that and because no 1 cares it dosen't do anything ) life's about whether you get it or not OP
There's no such thing as smart or dumb people hard working or lazy people good or bad people there's 2 kinds of people OP there's people who know what they want and there's people who are blindly chasing others in their life OP.

>>5884717
When someone talks about something using words and sentences that may sound intelligent when viewed briefly but ultimately it is without meaning because of the flaws in the logic that deduced the opinion.

>How does /sci/ define pseudo intellectualism?

First we need to define what intellectualism is

>>5884717
As a general rule of thumb, if you like asking philosophical questions more than scientific ones; you're a pseudo intellectual.

If you study the humanities besides analytical philosophy you are a psuedo-intellectual.

>>5884717
>How does /sci/ define pseudo intellectualism? I'm starting to think I am guilty of it, but how could I ever know one way or another?
If you're pondering a question without actually aiming to find an answer, you're engaging in pseudo-intellectualism. For example, the question posed in the picture can be succinctly and correctly answered with "no, because the simulation is a very imperfect approximation, which is not detailed enough to itself contain further simulations". If that answer does not satisfy you, you were interested in the question because of the possibility for pondering it provides without actually going anywhere, and in particularly without risking ever finding an answer -- pseudo-intellectualism.

A pseudo-intellectual is a person who affects the outward appearance of being an "intellectual" without engaging in serious intellectual inquiry.

>>5886254

That's dumb.

A pseudo-intellectual is someone who lies about their IQ.

>>5886252
If you don't already know it, you are not intellectual.

>>5886279
It is extremely dumb to pretend your hallucinations of demons and magical spirits reflect reality.

>>5887377
Why would anyone do that?

>>5890605
mine is over 300 so I don't have two lie

>>5884717

I'm careful not to talk about things I don't understand and when I do I make clear its always speculation. Yes, like most people, I like to discuss philosophy and metaphysics despite being a Scientists, but I recognise these are nothing more than mental exercises. Its basically "playing" for your brain. Those people are retarded, the guy asked a question, but they instantly leaped to using Science rather than seeing it as the mental exercise it was supposed to be. You don't have to be a scientists all day every day, just when you seriously wan to find something out or are applying it to something.

>>5886254
>>5889571
>philosophy
>hallucinations of demons and magical spirits
Oh god, your euphoric is showing. Please, learn what philosophy is before you make claims about it.

>>5884788
>were

Not really sure, I hear people use it a lot, I checked the definition for it, it seems relating to those who have no business discussing topics and or scientific conclusions without "sound scholarship".

But i think almost everyone here is one according to the definition. I dunno though, I suppose you can make the definition what you want it to mean within this social group considering no one on /sci/ seems in agreement.

Hey

>>>/lit/3923582

>>5889571
Hume and Lakatos want a word with you.

>>5891365
Looks like your /lit/ thread turned out less spectacular than expected.

>>5891230
I have learned and in all of my posts I have only stated facts. It is not that difficult to understand philosophy is empty talk without basis in reality.

>>5891370
Hume and Lakatos are philosophers and they don't understand science.

>>5894950
Lakatos received a degree in mathematics, physics, and philosophy from the University of Debrecen in 1944.

have you read Hume?

pseudo is what you do not like because it doesn't fit into your acquired set of prejudices

>>5896300
>have you read Hume?

No, I prefer to read science and math instead of edgy philosfaggotry.

>>5893829
science would be nowhere without people sitting down and pondering what how and why so don't play fucking form here

>>5897043
So, the guy you're talking to knows philosophy AND science and you are only into science but refuse to learn anything about philosophy because yur prejudices, even though scientists have been in numerous occasions philosophers.

You are exactly like a religious extremist.

>>5897099
>prejudices
I only see objectively verifiable facts in that post.

>>5897043
What an idiot. David Hume is one of the founders of scientific method.

>>5893829
You are so fucking stupid. What do you think science is? What do you think the scientific method is? What do you think epistemology is?

>>5886254
OP from this post,
For the record I said if you like philosophical questions MORE than scientific ones. You can still like philosophical questions and not be a pseudo intellectual. You just have to like scientific questions more.

To put it another way, if you like to think qualitatively over quantitatively (a.k.a. "I understand the concept, just not the math"); You're a pseudo intellectual.
Also everyone that went "muh philosophy" is either a pseudo-intellectual or autistic.

>>5897043

Is it considered pseudo intellectualism to make broad, sweeping and dismissive statements about academic fields you have absolutely no knowledge of?

>>5898029
Surprisingly no, scientists do it all the time. Especially physicists.

This thread is pseudo intellectual.

>>5898044
Now it is because you posted in it.

>>5899369
Pseudo intellectual detected.

>>5897847
The scientific method was founded by scientists, not charlatans.

>>5897845
>What do you think science is?
Application of the scientific method.

>What do you think the scientific method is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>What do you think epistemology is?
Useless philosophical wankery.

>>5897085
Exactly. Science gives us real answers and not vacuous untestable spiritualism drivel.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudointellectual

1.
a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship.
2.
a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.

>"How does /sci/ define"
Wrong board. You need a lexicon board.

>>5903917
The OP is asking for a scientific definition and the study of intelligence is an integral part of the cognitive sciences. I do not see why this would not belong on a science board.

>>5903917
>/sci/ - Science & Math
Yeah why would anyone here define anythin?

>>5898005
>You can still like philosophical questions and not be a pseudo intellectual

How so?

my friend is an obvious pseudo-intellectual
he'll spend a night reading something that sounds complicated, then try and shoehorn it into a normal conversation, allowing him to regurgitate everything he's remembered

if you ask him about the topic a few days later he's "lost interest"

>>5905499
What does he read?

>>5906286
everything is from Wikipedia

>>5906435
Wikipedia is not a good source of education.

>>5907993
Some of the articles are well-written.

>>5908648
Which ones? Are they about science?

>>5910220
Sorry to disappoint you. The answer is no, they're all about economics.

>>5903308
Well I'm guenuinely interested in science. Do I know more than you about it? Do I talk about it as if I had a fucking nobel prize? No and no.

>>5911909
This is a science and mathematics board. Economics does not belong here.

>>5912964
Economics is applied math.

>>5914278
No, it is not.

>>5914904
>>5912964
>MUH MADAMUDICKS!!!!!!!

Expand your mind autist.

>>5914926
But economics is largely evaluation of incentives and sociology, with math merely being the lens with which these can be seen, but understanding math will not make you understand economics, and nor will understanding economics make you understand math

>>5914941
>but
I meant "so", shucks

>>5914941
So economics is not just math but also science?

Speaking from personal experience, because im smart and shit, the easiest way to tell if you're guilty of pseudo-intellectualism is if you've never been accused of pseudo-intellectualism.

If you're a genuinely intelligent human, pseudo-intellectuals will come out of the woodwork to tell you how they think you're a pseudo-intellectual. Truly intelligent, handsome, educated, sexy people, like myself, don't use insult based retort/rebuke. As a result, you'll almost never hear them call you one. They'll just tell you why you're wrong or unjustified in your inane ramblings.

>>5890805
>Not having an imaginary number IQ
My IQ is actually in a super position right now, because I've never taken a test

>>5916149
>My IQ is actually in a super position right now
I laughed harder than I should've

/fit/ here

you guys are faggots

>>5916185
just get out

>>5916149
IQ scores are non-negative integers.

>>5917516
How do you know this? How many times have you opened the IQ box?

>>5919133
I don't need to open the box to solve the eigenvalue problem.

>>5920439
The operator you are using is not found in any valid DHR representation.

>>5921207
What does DHR mean?

>>5884717
If you are asking questions to seem smart, then your a psuedo fag

>>5917516
I'm pretty sure the domain is all reals because niggers typically have negative IQs.

>>5922232
What if you are asking questions to prove other people are stupid?

>>5922214
It is the acronym for differential heterotic renormalization.

>>5922232
What kind of question will make me look smart?

>Anonymous 07/07/13(Sun)01:13 No.5884717
>Posted almost 3 weeks ago
>still receiving responses

I'm disappoint, /sci/

>>5884717
Notate
Only once
then never again :D

>>5924350
Notate what?

>>5889571

>>5893829
you are doing philosophy right now
but philosophy is false
therefore you are wrong
if philosophy is wrong philosophy is right

>>5897841
>2013
>this autist

>>5897043
>hume doesnt understand science
have you read his books?
>no
confirmed for prepotent smartass,0/10 would not work with

>>5898035
YOUR FIELD OF STUDY IS NOT REDUCTIVE ENOUGH
WE MUST USE THE MOTION OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES TROUGH SPACE TO EXPLAIN BASEBALL

>>5925626
>have you read his books?

No, I prefer to read science and math books instead of pseudo-intellectual philosophy.

>>5884717
>How does /sci/ define pseudo intellectualism?

Being a philosopher.
Studying philosophy.
Caring about philosophy.
Philosophizing.

>>5926567
How could that be pseudo, and, in that context, is intellectualism 'wrong'?

>>5901886
>>5901886
it doesn't get any more real than something along the lines of 'something exists'. Way more real than ' the measurement of some supposed quantity by some method is some number, and it relates to other measurements in this way '

>>5884717
I myself think of pseudo-intellectualism as people making judgements and feeling sure about them, and arguing for them, regarding topics they have no fucking clue about and have not put any effort into learning about, i.e. this faggot: >>5897043

>>5926593
>How could that be pseudo

Because isn't a real intellectual pursuit.

>and, in that context, is intellectualism 'wrong'?

Just dumb.

>>5926630
Because philosophy isn't a real intellectual pursuit*

>>5926631
Read a book, fuck. Even if you were a math and physics professor while believing this, I would consider you stupid and an idiot, completely honestly. If you're not trolling you're missing out on something important to your life by being so closed-minded. I'm trying to help you with this post

>>5926664
Hold on I need to add a fifth definition of pseudo-intellectualism:

Defending philosophy.

>>5926686
There are many other mathematical structures that could describe pseudo-intellectualism.

>>5926686
>stop liking what I don't like

Simply put, it's having knowledge without understanding.
A pseudo intellectual has to remember every all the information they hear, a intellectual understands it.

It's like if you told a four year old one plus one equals two. They'd then know that one plus one equals two, but you asked them what one plus two is, they could tell you because they don't understand how you solved for two.

>>5927724
>every all
Damn it I meant *all

>reCaptcha: prescience isohan

>>5916114
This post gave me cancer.

>>5927724
How do you solved for two?

>>5884731
>about 100% of discussion about philosophy quantum mechanical topics are also pseudo intellectual in that no one who I've met who knows anything about QM cares about its philosophy,

This.

>>5929176
The exercise simplifies to 2=x. Now all you have to do is solve for x.

>>5932174
I don't know how to solve this. I am not a number theorist.

>>5933621
It has multiple solutions.

/sci/ IS the definition of pseudo intellectualism.

>>5886255
analytical philosophy
to tears are shed for you and all the fucking idiots who use philosophy to spot bullshit

Who cares? Any activity aimed towards intellectual pursuits are welcome in my eyes.

>>5905490
not op but by not being a bitch who uses subjectivity to get past all the hard stuff

hard line philosophy is like math so if your not doing math your doing it wrong

>>5935914
>hard line philosophy is like math

What is "hard line" philosophy? How can philosophy get rid of subjectivity?

>>5935909
Which activities are aimed towards intellectual pursuits?

>>5899369
wrecked

First we must define intellectualism.

>>5940662
How would we do this?

>>5942539
I don't know. I am not pseudo-intellectual.

>I'm starting to think I am guilty of it

All of us are guilty.

Psuedo intellectualism is when you talk about philosophy instead of science.

>>5947740
We have a winrar.

>dfw neil degrasse sagans Cosmos 2.0 is going to be a bunch of "hurr universe experiencing itself" garbage
>dfw new wave of retards will flood the internet
>dfw more retards will be made than kids that will be inspired

>mfw

>>5949150
When the realisation hit me about our atoms being forged in stars, about 'reality' being a mental model formed using only our senses... I experienced awe and wanted to learn everything about the world, got addicted to science, read and listened to a lot of stuff, got a first class masters... It inspires some people. Perhaps not you.

>>5893829
Please go take a real philosophy class like logic or epistemology before you spout nonsense.

>>5884717
Anyone who tries to argues semantics when discussing something. "But that's not what you said.", "But this means this and not that.", "Yes, but that's not what I think it means." It is my biggest pet peeve ever. When discussing something the words used are not important it's about what they were conveying, furthermore with any argument it isn't about trying to put the premises in as bad of a light as possible but to give the speaker as much credence and the benefit of the doubt as possible. Choosing to do anything else tends to show that someone is not interested in the truth but arguing only for the sake of arguing . And thus are a pseudo-intellectual.

>>5907993
Wikipedia is typically a great resource, it helped me a great deal in conjunction with the hyperphysics website when I was taking intro to quantum mechanics.

>>5922385
Still a psuedo fag. Intellectuals aren't interested in making others look stupid they only seek the truth.

>>5949749
Where can I find the truth?

>>5951120
in science

>>5949150
in the long run popularisation of science fields can yield only profits. If kids get interested, then more will join white-coat ranks. Same as military propoganda.
One could argue, that this benefit will appear slowly and not so visibly as one could want it to.
New blood-new thoughts-new "paths" of thinking = progress.

>>5953538
There is a problem though. Pop sci fags are not popularizing science (i.e. research) but only colorful results of science to be consumed mindlessly.

>>5953538
Astronomy is a bad field for getting people into science.
It's too remote from everyday concerns. Kds don't make the connection between the pretty picture and the fact that they could be scientists.

>>5954744
>Kds don't make the connection between the pretty picture and the fact that they could be scientists.

They do but they think science is only looking at pretty pictures. Literally nobody told them how research works.

>>5884731
>"if I don't see someone, are they in a superposition, or are they observing themselves, hurdurhurdur?"

What is the scientific answer to this question?

>>5956946
superposition

>>5896321

You sound like a homeopathy lobbyist.

>>5957322

spambummer!

>>5949741
>it helped me a great deal in conjunction with the hyperphysics website

What is hyperphysics?

>>5959284
>pretending not to shitbump this thread twice daily
>pretending you haven't/cannot read the sticky
>pretending you cannot google search

obvious troll is painfully obvious,
nonetheless:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html