/sci/ - Science & Math

We don't hate them. Let me explain with an analogy.

Imagine you have a little brother who was born with an intellectual disability. Would you always pretend he's a normal human being or would you treat him on his level? Of course you would do the latter. Does that mean you hate him? Of course not.

>>6370923
They don't. /sci/ hates biologists, chemists, geologists, engineers, applied mathematicians, physiologists, sociologists, basically everyone that isn't Feynman.

no one hates anyone. in fact if they worked together more often then we could get further than we are now.

>>6370938
Feynman was a low IQ autist.

>>6370923
Oh, that's so cute. Please don't cry. It's just that biology is for sexually unsatisfied women, chemistry still has that old school spirit of alchemy, where systematisation is virtually nonexistent, and geology isn't a real science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8z2MxZ32U4

>>6370923
Why can't biologists, chemists, and geologists handle the banter?

>>6370941
not even feynman gets love

IS THERE ANYTHING /SCI/ DOESNT HATE?

>>6370956
Of course. This young genius.

>>6370947

>>6370947
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjMWnOezGU0

>>6370933

what if it was you all along?

at school you used to be bullied
you never understood why
eventually you found your own peer group
you protected one another, and started cocooning yourselves from the others
you eventually found others like you and studied physics because there is a great prevalence of those like you there
except even there are some you deem as "not of your kind"

then your little brother came along and grew up to be one of "them"
you think he's stupid.
you think he lacks your intelligence because, after all, you managed to get on track to something that is considered to be only for those of "top intelligence"

but he is out there, socializing, building connections, being *human*

you see that as a flaw. what you fail to realize is that he has another intelligence - social intelligence - which you don't recognize because you completely lack the reference for it.

while he is busy *goofing off* you are trying to stay afloat in your books and scripts, attempting to grasp what comes easy to others in your class. but surely, they study as much as you do, except they do it at night with the help of drugs, so you think.

while you are busting your testicles trying to prove to yourself that you have value as a human, your little brother is accruing value as a human, as validated by his peers. since he has already achieved value, he decides to try and advance his knowledge and wisdom so that he may contribute his intellect to his peers. he breezes through the easy field with ease and builds relevant technologies - with his friends, while you try and fail to comprehend some abstract musings of a genious under the carrot stick illusion that you yourself are a genious.

yes, he is different from you. but you are in no position to label him with an intellectual disability.

you could accuse him of underachievement, but that's it. but since he's accomplished more than you have, functionally and effectively, you need to realize that your high horse

>>6371025

that your high horse is actually a soggy cardboard box in a muddy roadside ditch on a rainy night

>>6371030
>>6371025
plebeian please

>>6371025
>social intelligence

Is this what low IQ plebs actually believe? Let me laugh even harder.

>>6371040

how does it feel when my gender studies major is worth more in the progressively matriarchial business world than your abstract pseudo-hamiltonian physics phd.

>>6371025
Not samefag but I actually quite enjoyed this. I hate these /sci/ physics undergrads saying "lol physics is lyfe if it's not logical I don't want it because I'm so smart" and then having a miserable life because fun isn't logical. Talk to physics profs or researchers. They would never say half the shit that /sci/ physics undergrads say about how important logic is. They are compensating for their blatant intellectual mediocrity.

>>6371050
My physics prof used to make fun of social science majors all the time.

>>6371048

I have a higher IQ than feynman but I am convinced that he was smarter than you and I combined.

>>6371056
There is a difference. I make fun of people who study fields non-STEM fields all the time. There are actually people on this board though who claim that they should never be happy because it isn't logical, that child abuse is fine because morality isn't logical, and that socializing is a waste of time because it is illogical. Have fun with your bland and cruel life if you believe that.

>>6371050
Because profs or researchers in their majority - which is statistically obvious - are quite dense. I'm not saying /sci/ers are smarter, they, like everyone else, are living and thus speaking though the stereotypes, that someone hardwired into their mind. It's just that these stereotypes happen to be the closest to the reality of things. Sadly, it's no use for them for they are too idiotic to use such lifestyle to their advantage. Happily, I'm a genius and have no problems with it myself.

>>6371050
This. Nothing makes me angrier.

>>6371089
You sure seem to be a genius from your command of the english language. There was almost the shadow of a coherent thought in there

>>6371100
Appeal to form, plz.

>>6371060
3/10.
Everyone knows when I and Q are put in the same sentence on sci it's an obvious troll

>>6370923
>Why do physicist hate biologists, chemists and geologists?

Because the physicists are completely hung up on mathematics and largely just DO NOT want to look at the real world if they can possibly avoid it.

Mathematics are a way of describing things that are real, right? When these guys start focusing on it exclusively, you end up with strange shit like 9 or 11-dimensional space and all sorts of varieties of string theories and 'branes, none of which have ever had a shred of proof.

Too many chandeliers and not enough light switches? Call the electrician!

OCCAM'S RAZOR, BITCHES!

Maybe they're looking down inside the quantum physics version of the proverbial rabbit hole:

GO ASK ALICE!

>>6371025
>Biologist, Chemists and Geologists as the high social function, less withdrawn siblings as the Physicist is locked alone with books.

I love this analogy.
And here I thought the answer for OP was that the Physicists only wants the toys that are increadably expensive or they have to visit at the museum, where they aren't allowed to touch and the Biologist, Chemist and Geologist get handed all the neat toys they could ever want, for free.

ITT: circlejerk of soft science plebeians

Damn. Years of masturbating alone in lab sure has made you assholes pretty bitter.

I'm majoring in creative writing at my community college. J-J-J-Jealous /sci/clopses?

>>6370923
I like all of you guys.

But I'm a math major.

>>6371178
Just because you don't understand mathematics, doesn't mean it doesn't apply. The "real" world is pretty strange.

>>6371589
And everybody knows maths majors are autists. Even worse than geologists.

>>6371598
>Just because you don't understand mathematics, doesn't mean it doesn't apply. The "real" world is pretty strange.

Agreed.

But all the fluffy, "sexy" theories that have proliferated recently ARE conjecture.

Three facts:

>1. Quantum physics works well with the very small.

>2. Standard physics seems to explain the macro-verse.

>3. Both proofs MOSTLY work, but we can't reconcile them yet.

Einstein devoted the his life in a fruitless quest to make sense of it. Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli tried to see if there was some other sort of causation going on that to reconcile the observed irregularities and inform quantum physics. They got WAY mystical in the process. Pauli, for god's sake, had poltergeist phenomenon centering on him; he had a vested interest in more fully describing the real world.

Mathematical theories are equations. Everything's fine so long as each side of the equation balances out. That doesn't mean that they are applicable to the real world.

I mean, some of the stuff that (god help us all) Hawkins did threw all sorts of inapplicable dynamics into his black hole treatise and he just took too many doglegs in the process.

Occam's Razor is a guiding principle. If stuff is getting more and more complicated and your equations more and more elaborate, then maybe we're missing something BASIC.

We should have greatest respect for mathematicians, even if we can't follow the high level stuff.

Physicists and Astronomers have opened our eyes to whole new vistas and do amazing things with mathematics. But the ones that do, subject their work to rigorous proof and their colleagues check it out, right?

A minority only want to look at the math and have a disdain for all things practical--and for those who would like to actually test or USE something.

Mathematics is a descriptive language we use to grab hold of something and make it useful. It should not be mistaken for the thing itself.