/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6570096
I don't think I have a way of measuring how ignorant certain statements are.
I had an edgy phase where I debated religious people on Youtube comment sections and I heard a lot of stupid shit back then.

>>6570096
Is that from that Facebook video floating around

I have transcended beyond caring long time ago.
Like why would you care about what other people say.

>>6565289
>More power, safer, cheaper on the long term, less pollution than power plants and thermic powers stations.

CS is basically math
CS has more math in it than Physics
CS only sucks at shit schools
CS majors are just as intelligent as other STEM majors

>>6570096
>dat quote

I just watched that video. Jesus fucking christ. He used one of the laws of thermodynamics to prove that the world is "too perfectly organized" to happen by science.

>>6570096
>>yfw when your thesis was essentially based on building a computational tornado to put together ferraris

>quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness

>>6570096
> quantum mechanics has anything to do with consciousness

>>6570373 >>6570373 >>6570373
no wait, this retard^

>>6570130
although an idiot (power plants and thermic powers stations), his central point is still correct. thorium reactors are the best power source short of efficient solar.

>0.999... equals 1

a conversation i had with fellow engineers, some quotes.
>quantum means its not really there.
>quantum mechanics are about things that doesn't exist, its all just theories.
>Einstein said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't.

Well, I've heard some pretty dumb shit on this website:

http://boards.4chan.org/sci

>>6570100
I had an faggot phase in which I pretended to be a retarded christian to bait people like you. It was fun baiting people on thunderf00t's video's comments section.

>>6570436
oooooohhohoho you are eevil. links?

>deep sea colonization is the future
>the existence of aliens is statistically likely
>"integral" is synoymous with "anti-derivative"
>subjective experience is fully explained by "emergence"
>science is a branch of philosophy
>math is only an application of logic
>transhumanism is science
>intelligence cannot be measured / is meaningless
>[insert scientific field here] is unintelligent/useless/non-science because I don't like some of its undergrad students

>>6570157
no one says any of this

>>6570453
Lurk more. We have this shit every day on /sci/.

>>6570449
>>[insert scientific field here] is unintelligent/useless/non-science because I don't like some of its undergrad students

This is really the blight of /sci/, and I'm pretty sure it's one single person.

>>6570458
1% of the posters account for 99% of the shitposting that's for sure

>>6570130
Are you saying thats not true?

Because I think your post might be the most ignorant thing ive heard about science

>>6570157
Two of those are true.

>>6570096
I had someone tell me to stop using science law.

Not today gravity, I think I'll just float around.

>But how can you like even know anything maaaaaannnnn

Philosofags pls

>>6570096
I'm not fond of people not taking statistics or psychology seriously because they don't know what goals do those fields set and how both of them can be manipulated in media.

Very much dislike the arrogant attitude towards Newtonian physics because "it doesn't describe reality as it is" - again, misunderstanding the goals of a particular field.

And of course all the pop-sci stuff about the Schroedinger cats and what not. When I start to explain the basics everyone loses interests, of course. I guess it's like revealing the trick details ruining magic for them, also too lazy to listen.

>>6570096
to be fair, that's not too far a stretch, i'd say. Natural selection occurs when 1 in say one million has an advantageous mutation so over multiple generations, across billions of separate lives, something amazing compiles itself together.
Give a garage with the capacity to build a ferrari billions of tornadoes, it could well build a ferrari, it's just a very low chance.

"Theory" of intelligent design however, is opening and closing your garage door repeatedly in the hope a ferrari will spawn in the middle of the garage

>>6570696
>And of course all the pop-sci stuff about the Schroedinger cats and what not.

>But maaan, the cat is half alive and half dead at the same time, that's just amazing y'know ?
>#IFuckingLoveScience

>>6570449
But the existence of aliens is statistically likely
Integrals are essentially synonymous with the anti-derivative
Science is a branch of philosophy
Math is just an application of logic
You may want to rethink what gives you butthurt, because with that list you're going to be butt-hurt for a long time

>>6570710
>But the existence of aliens is statistically likely


>Muh drake equation
Faggot.


>Science is a branch of philosophy

Not anymore, it was true before the 19th century

>>6570716
So, do you have a widely accepted theory on how to statistically estimate the probability of there being alien life?

>>6570719
No. Do you ? If the answer is no, then don't say it's "statistically likely".

I don't know but it bothers me when people can't even comprehend emergence, it's like okay you can convince them that nature has tendencies but these tendencies in no way explain the universe

I literally think "nigger" at that point

Science is just a theory (a geuss)
It was wrong once
It's a religion
I'm a skeptic because I disregard whatever you're going to say and stick to my pet theory

>>6570721
The Drake equation is widely accepted and taught in unis.
The burden of proof isn't on me - I'm not the one "challenging" the current theory.

>>6570716
The Drake equation? Why not! Everyone just fucks around with the likenesses wayyy too much.

>>6570449
So much agreed. Especially emergence ... Cringe.

Transhumanism is like future-politics, it has to do with science just because there will be science in the future. That's literally it.

In conclusion, I like your post a lot. Thanks for posting it, Anon.

>>6570737
Taught in colleges ? Really ? What for ?
Oh, and also, no one has solved it, it's just "guesses".

>>6570453
CS is mostly maths. It is just a type of applied maths, like mathematical physics. I think CS contains as much maths an physics, but it is of a different flavour. The CS course at my university seems pretty good, but the things some people on here study might as well be programming courses. I don't know about the average intelligence of CS majors, but I don't really care. It's the intelligence of CS researchers you should be concerned with.
I study maths and physics, by the way.

>>6570737
The Drake equation was a joke made by Drake at the beginning of a conference. He made up something so ridiculously naive and flawed that even an average 10 year old is supposed to not take it seriously.

>>6570661

Scientific laws are just general descriptions of observations, not iron-clad proofs of something.

>>6570710
>But the existence of aliens is statistically likely
Would you mind presenting your probability model to us? What sigma-algebra and what probability measure are you using? How is your choice justified by existing observational evidence?

>Integrals are essentially synonymous with the anti-derivative
What is the anti-derivative of the Dirichlet function? Do you even know the definition of integrable?

>Science is a branch of philosophy
Science and philosophy are polar opposites. Science changes and refines its views to account for new evidence. Philosophy denies reality and resorts to ridiculous fallacies only to presever baseless beliefs.

>Math is just an application of logic
1. Gödel showed it is impossible to construct one deductive axiomatic system to derive all of math from.
2. Only a soon to be dropout could be sufficiently narrow-minded to deny the crucial role of intuition, visualization and applications in mathematics.

>>6570737
The "Drake equation" is neither widely accepted nor is it taught in any university. It was nothing more than a joke.

>>6570343
link?

>>6570775
>Philosophy denies reality and resorts to ridiculous fallacies only to presever baseless beliefs.
>this is what people actually believe

>>6570661
Oh, it's you.

>Abiogenesis can't be real because we've never observed it firsthand.

We know that some force we call gravity exists, but we only have theories as to how it works. The idea that gravity will function the way you think it will is not a law, it's a theory.

>>6570775
>Science and philosophy are polar opposites. Science changes and refines its views to account for new evidence. Philosophy denies reality and resorts to ridiculous fallacies only to presever baseless beliefs.
Now this is a pretty ignorant comment.

>>6570096
> Plate tectonics/ natural selection/ the big bang/ general relativity/ etc. is just a theroy, so we shouldnt assume it's true.

> scientists are/aren't theists because...

>>6570820
Yeah it is me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
>systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
>gained through observation and experimentation.
>observation

PS
Gravity is a law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

>>6571492

>>6570774

>>6571504
Yeah I read that.
Are you claiming gravity is not real?

The fact that it is still a law means it has never been disproven.
You are starting to sound like one of those "you can't know nothin" idiots.

And you guys think me the fool.

>>6571555

>The fact that it is still a law means it has never been disproven.

>>6570774

>>6571555
The law stating that gravity exists has not been disproven.

The law stating that it behaves according to Newton's formula for gravitation has been disproven.

Some American politician said that wind power is bad because it'll slow down the winds and use them all up, which would be devastating to the environment.

I guess he was at least familiar with how energy works, but forgot that the sun exists.

>>6570449
>"integral" is synoymous with "anti-derivative"
Is it not/

>>6570096
>>"Evolution is like believing a tornado plowing through a junk yard and after the dust settles, a brand new perfect condition ferrari is randomly assembled"


for all we know Evolution might be even more improbable than that.

>>6570775
>Science and philosophy are polar opposites. Science changes and refines its views to account for new evidence. Philosophy denies reality and resorts to ridiculous fallacies only to presever baseless beliefs.

>>6571759
>for all we know
Back to the Fifteenth Century with you.

>>6570775
Drake equation

>>6571996
Long Life Tim Minchin

>>6570096

For one to make a apple pie, one must first create a universe.

If an apple pie exist, i don't see how evolution is impossible

>>6570096
I've seen lots of dudes / gurls saying people use only 10 % of their brain ;Lol

>science proves the existence of god/ghosts/jews cuz muh kwantum mekanix

Fuck off and die.

>>6570096
science is good?

I mean, i do like science, but i also like cigarettes =)
And if 90% of science goes straight off to the military, well?

Philosophy tends to have a conscience? ^^

>>6570673

Can you say that science will save us before it kills us? =.
Would be an interesting statistic wouldn't it?
killed by science vs saved by science

hmm.. there's probably a dollar value in it too...
very approximately, saved by science will have a positive cost value (pay to be saved) vs killed by science is probably negative (other people are buying death...)

>>6570096
>"Evolution is like believing a tornado plowing through a junk yard and after the dust settles, a brand new perfect condition ferrari is randomly assembled"

Actually, I would consider that a pretty good analogy for the claim of abiogenesis. And yes, I consider the idea of abiogenesis to be as ridiculous as the idea that a tornado could build a Ferrari.

I'm not a 7 day creationist. But I have no doubt that life in this universe was seeded and guided by a being or being(s) not of this universe.

>inb4 ignorant! IGNORANT!!!

Save it. I follow the math, and the math says abiogenesis is a fucking fairy tale.

>Our existence isn't a coincidence. Our complexity is indicative of a higher power.

Could someone help me out with this? This mindset seems fairly common and I think it's a logical fallacy of some sort; I just don't know which one.

To expand on why it's illogical, the fact that we're here on a planet with good conditions for life isn't proof of a higher power. It's proof that the conditions for life were good enough.

In other words, if you roll a die enough, you'll roll a six eventually. The same is true for planets and life; we just rolled the six.

>>6572053
Have you seen Limitless? Why the hell did they not have him eating a shit load of food all the time? I mean, I get that it's Hollywood, but come on. Brain food is important.

>>6572135
Argument from incredulity
"I can't see how it could happen on its own, therefore god did it"
>It's proof that the conditions for life were good enough.
I'm pretty sure that's called anthropic principle

>>6572129
The chances that I own a car are really small. The chances that car has a license plate that says J-4788-L are even smaller. Nevertheless, I own a car wich license plate says J-4788-L.

Fucking magic, isn't it?

This came from a friend who actually likes science, and thinks he knows more than me:

-There is no faster thing than sight. It takes light millions of years to go from here to the stars and the other way around, but we can actually look at the stars instantly.
He was 20 when he said this, and wouldn't accept the truth from me until another friend of us, who admittedly knows more than both of us explained it to him.

>>6570421
Technically one of those is true

>>6570096
This is paraphrased, but...

"Evolution is obviously wrong. Lizards couldn't have evolved into birds; a lizard depends on speed to survive and, while evolving awkward half-wings, it would be eaten by an eagle."

>>6572433
>eagle
must have been a murrican

>>6572433

>>6570096
>"Evolution is like believing that an unfathomably large amount of tornadoes plowing through an unfathomably large amount of junk yards and after the dust settles, a brand new perfect condition ferrari is randomly assembled in an unfathomably small fraction of the junk yards"

Fixed.

People don't understand that if something has a one-in-a-million chance and you take a billion tries, you'll see that one-in-a-million a thousand times.

>>6572654
but evolution still isn't like that

mutations are random, selection isn't

>"The second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution."
I swear I hate it when people say this bullshit....

>>6572654
Beneficial mutations and generic drift are random, but natural selection and evolution aren't.

>>6572245
>-There is no faster thing than sight. It takes light millions of years to go from here to the stars and the other way around, but we can actually look at the stars instantly.
Got anymore? This guy sounds like a riot.

>>6572433
That's pretty good too

>"dinosaurs didn't have feathers!"
That person was one dense motherfucker...

>>6572996
>"The second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution."
What is the argument for this?

>>6573005
>What is the argument for this?

They think it means nothing can become more "ordered," e.g. like life coming from non-life or organisms becoming more complex. They are... confused.

>>6573005
Basically they take the idea that all natural systems are breaking down to disprove that life evolved. But yet they forget that it only applies in closed systems.

>>6570096

I once heard some pseudoscientist attempt to "disprove homosexuality" (as if denying it does exist) using magnets and their poles. Because science is totally about metaphors.

That dude was probably denser than osmium.

>>6570096
>Wind power is worse for the environment because you have to use gas to turn wind turbines because "Just look at those things and how slow they move, how much electricity do you think that could generate? I've got a buddy who used to work on these things" or something like that

>>6573014
The sad thing is the govt. of wherever he was from (one of the more batshit countries in Africa) was using his research as a reason to back their anti-homosexuality laws, IIRC.

>>6573043
Was it Uganda?

>>6573046
Sounds about right

>>6570736
>Science is just a theory
But it is, scientists are just treating it like the truth. The basics of Science aren't maybe 100% true. What if some particle faster than light was discovered?

>>6573063
>What if some particle faster than light was discovered?
Then our current theories would be <span class="math">incomplete[/spoiler], not incorrect.

In fact, we kind of already know that most of our theories (including the Standard Model), though extremely well-tested and shown to agree with experiment, are woefully incomplete.

>>6570449
>math is only an application of logic

Math is probably the most rigourous example of a logic system we have you shitking.

>>6573281
>>6570449
>distinguishing between "math" and "logic"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
no.

>>6573286
What do you think math is?

>>6573301
As I implied, math is logic.

>>6573317
Learn about Goedel.

>>6573324
>hurr hurr Gödel's incompleteness theorems
I was just waiting for this to happen

>>6573317
Not at all. Maths uses logic, but it proposes additional axioms on top of those used in logic, the same way physics has laws on top of mathematical theorems.

>>6573333
>it proposes additional axioms
So then math is a specialized branch of logic.

>Homosexuality is normal

>>6573337
>implying that "normal" has a unique, well-defined meaning in science

>>6571740
No

>>6570421
Mybe it is just a model, just like Newton's Laws. But the model seems to work, and we can get stuff calculated by it. Yes it might not actually represent how Nature really works, but if it's a good model why not use it?

>>6573336
Yes
You very openly laughed at two people for distinguishing between math and logic, when they are distinguishable things

>>6573336
>So then math is a specialized branch of logic.

That's even wronger. Logic is a strict subset of math. Math encompasses much more than just logic. How about you come back after entering university?

>>6572261
which?

>Integrals are essentially synonymous with the anti-derivative
>What is the anti-derivative of the Dirichlet function? Do you even know the definition of integrable?

So the MOST ignorant thing a few people in this thread have EVER heard someone say about science is not being aware of a technical detail in analysis that derivatives are not necessarily Riemann integrable? Some people need to get out more...

Well in that case the most ignorant thing Ive ever heard in science from anyone ever is some idiot implying the Dirichlet function is Riemann integrable

>>6570157

lol cs is math dumbass

>>6570403
Oh don't you start this again

My little brother: When will the earth flood again?
Me: What?
Bro: You know, like Noah's Ark. When will it rain enough for the earth to get flooded
Me: Where do you even think rain comes from, it just appears?
Bro: I thought it was aliens or something.
Me: No, see, *insert water cycle speech here*
Bro: Oh.
Bro: Wait, what about when we drink water?
This seems okay until you find out he's graduating next year, or hopefully is

>>6574016
But I suppose you can't blame him for being curious. For actual assertions? Hmm.
Youtube has a lot of those.
Ah.
>The chicxiclub meteor was made of ice. When it melted on impact, the flood happened. God told noah early so he made an ark. The dinosaurs drowned, and humanity kept growing for anpther 6000 years until now
but wait, what about muh 65 mil years?
>CARBON DATING IS LIEEEES
This guy speaks at universities.