/sci/ - Science & Math

God, I remember that 'factual falcon' thing that happened on there about a year ago. /pol/tards were gathering up pseudoscientific and quack studies and 'raiding' reddit with them

>>6695382
Actually it was redditors trying to bring /pol/ maymays to their home forum. I remember all the crying and whining in the factual falcon threads about reddit banning their accounts on which they had collected so much karma over the last years. Remember: /pol/ is the 4chan board with the highest percentage of redditors. Every meme loving wannabe nerd goes there to pretend being the edgy faggot he'd never dare to be in his politically correct everyday life.

>libshits who get butthurt when their data produces cold hard facts that fly in the face of Jewish lies they were inculcated with from birth
And the problem is?

>>6695408
>race
>cold hard facts
>in /sci/
either bait or just retarded. either way, go back to >>>/pol/

>>6695364
lol'd hard OP.

10/10

/pol/esmokers are fucking dipshits who'll believe any /x/-tier shit as long as it fits in with their worldview. The traditional notions of race stopped being taken seriously in genetics almost a decade ago.

>>6695433
>The traditional notions of race stopped being taken seriously in genetics almost a decade ago.
Thank Boasian cultural Marxism and the kikes infiltrating the anthropological and biological disciplines for that. Then whenever someone like based Wade tries to challenge their model, he gets immediately silenced.

>>6695442
lolno, it's actually because you can't even define a racial partitioning in a rigorous way without using some logical fallacy or being completely subjective.

>inb4 /pol/esmoker links some blog post that uses an ML clustering algorithm and gets blown the fuck out because ML clustering algorithms aren't convergent.

>colours were discredited years ago because you can't make a rigorous partition of the spectrum

>>6695458
Can you prove that your qualia are the same as mine?

Read them and weep, faggots.

>>6695459
Probably impossible to do this. Your point being?

>>6695458
That's not why. You can make a partition of the spectrum (Hz) by defining a metric and thus making it into a metric space. Then you can define an equivalence relation using your metric and voila you've got a partitioning. The real problems with color are that:
1) There doesn't exist a bijection between the set of colors and the section of the spectrum representing visible light. Magenta for example does not appear on the spectrum but is a color.
2) We see color using a mixture of Red, Green, Blue, due to how our rods and cones work. This means that every other color is represented as a sum of red/green/blue. TV screens, LCD screens, and so on all work off of this principle. This means that the orange you see on a skyline first hand is actually different than the same orange you see in a video. To really drive the point home, dogs and other animals have different rods and cones that while they work off of the same principle they respond to different frequencies, some animals are even tetrachromats and see color as a mixture of four basic colors. This means that a dog looking at the same TV you are will see entirely different colors than you do.
3) Optical illusions and shit also have a tendency to fuck with the colors we perceive.

There's also slight differences in the colors different individuals see and there's a lot of research on this with lots of applications in design and color management. This doesn't mean that color doesn't exist nor that it's impossible to rigorously define. There are many approaches in doing so, one just has to be clear on the separation between frequency and color. This analogy has nothing similar to race, because the problems with defining race are much deeper.

>>6695462
>le IQ thread

>>6695462
I'm curious how you measure the IQ of random countries like that. You wouldn't be interested in the /sci/entific methods used though, would you?

>>6695481
That's some fancy shit wording for naming a specific interval of the spectrum. Your points 1), 2) and 3) are wholly irrelevant. You're missing the qualitative point.

>>6695502
>I believe that color and frequency are the same thing.
>I believe that tone and frequency are the same thing.
>I don't understand how ears or eyeballs work.

>>6695489
> hey, Rwandan kid, want some food? Take this IQ test

>>6695508
>I am unable to discern the relevant issue at hand so I go on at length about irrelevant bullshit.

>>6695502
way to stand behind your own analogy dipshit

>>6695524
I was just pointing out that your analogy is bullshit because it's very obviously wrong to anyone who has even a cursory background in science.

>>6695543
The analogy is clear. Your points are moot.

>>6695559
The analogy is clearly wrong. My points are not moot.

>>6695565
Go flip a burger. With an intellect like that you'll need to become adept at it.

>>6695572
>ad hominem

>>6695572
>I'm just going to tell him to go flip burgers. I hope he doesn't notice my argument is retarded.

>>6695398
>>6695408
>>6695442
>>6695458
>>6695462
>>6695502
>>6695515
>>6695524
>>6695559
>>6695572
>>>/pol/

>>6695462
My official position is that there are some subspecies of human, the african human is the purest human, whites, asians, and amerindians are a subspecies of african humans.
race =/= species

>>6695364
i mean my knowledge is limited to first-second year understanding of force of selection, genetics and epigenetics and human evolution but its pretty easy to see why his book was speculative nonsense.

genes are first of all flexible, they are encoded and expressed in response to environments, you won't grow tall if you aren't getting the proper biochemical responses which tell your body you have enough calcium.

second is that natural selection doesn't sweep in a few generations, they are gradualistic.

i mean a century of breeding rats you find more generations than since humans begin agriculture, but doesn't mean rats are suddenly speciated as strongly from a base stock. they tend to remain very much the same if selection pressure isn't choosing one or two genes.