/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7052659
take that shit back to /feminazi/ or /retard/

>>7052659
>Younger women are smarter.
There is less sexual differentiation. When girls start to become women and boys become men, men will become smarter and girls will gain "emotional intelligence".

>>7052659
>women are smarter than boys
Yet the entire rest of the infographic goes on to explain in explicit detail that women are too retarded to science, and even something as minor as "being asked for them to indicate their gender" can cause them to instantly become failures.

That doesn't sound very smart to me. It just sounds like teachers in high school are biased against males.

>>7052659
>girls are smarter than boys
on average yes, but this distribution is a lot different i.e. the curve is flatter

lol if dumb broads can't even understand basic gaussian distribution, how the fuck can you expect to make it in a science? yes, i mad 10/10

>>7052659
hoooooly shiiiiiit...
now we'll never be able to have a fun discussion ever again

>>7052644
Not a lot. There's been attempts in the past to start a campaign to actually start making some legitimately good "Made in /sci/" infographics or even just start an archive of user submitted science conference posters but they never seem to get any traction.

>>7052659
hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard.

chicks are generally smarter, but they lack the will to grind out a problem that they can't solve. its why they cry during tests.

>>7052968
Well, what kind of topics would people like to see infographics about?

>>7052971
lol i disagree i think if someone is crying in a test it is because they know despite their hard work they assess that they are ruined. but maybe you're right... (never cried in a test i swear)

>>7053616
>molecular perspective
What does that even mean?

>>7053625
stfu pleb
>look up HOMO
nohomo

>>7053625
I'd have to read the paper to find out, I imagine.

>>7053622
>i disagree
>but maybe you're right
another thing about chicks, they can't decide their own opinion

>>7052644
>mfw most of modern physics can't be tested using experiments.

>>7053665
That's because string theory is pseudoscience.

>>7053665
Computer simulations are experiments.

>>7052659
girls mature quicker that boys

>>7053665
If it can't be tested it is just pseudoscience.

>>7052659

Back to leddit.

>>7053763
this
>>7052659
Girls operate on a lower gear ratio than males; they have higher acceleration but a lower top speed.

>>7053767
fuck lower gear*
damn this 60 seconds to correct myself someone's going to make fun of me while i'm defenceless.

>>7053665
>mfw you have no fucking clue what most of modern physics is, or what constitutes science

>>7053669
By your definition, Peter Higgs won a Nobel prize for pseudo-science because the higgs mechanism wasn't testable at the time he published.

Sting theory creates measurable, quantifiable results about the world. Hence it is science.

>>7052659
>one point five is accounted as relevant, while there is no mention of standard deviations
>No mention that girls score better in ALL subjects since they mature faster than boys, to single out math and science is dishonest.
>Drop in self-esteem is not compared against boys, rendering that graph useless
>No context in the "mark your gender" test, it honestly doesn't make any sense that such a single thing can make score go down so many points
>No context in the "which gender is more suited for a task" question.
>Rest is simply pointing out that there are, in fact, less women than men pursuing science
Also sources include:
>A page that says men actually have higher IQ after puberty
>an MNSBC article
The only interesting source seems to be the "why so few" thesis that's full of speculation, qualitative assessments and circular logic (there are no women in STEM because they are not interested because the fields are male-dominated because there are no women in STEM).

7/10 troll graph you can see through it pretty quickly. Bonus points for putting sources in an image, some of them not even being active.

>>7053637
that's why you're an engineer - you have your thoughts decided for you and you vehemently oppose exposure to contradictory evidence. You'll never be a scientist.

also i'm a dude
also we're judging an entire group of people based on a presumed single event in their lives, which may be the only discernible similarity. What am i doing /sci is shit

>>7053852
>>7053904
>>7053765
This is why sci is shit - elitism wasn't ruthlessly enforced. If you don't know about a subject STFU and politely ask simple direct questions. Otherwise lurk.

>>7053904
you're a fucking idiot. you get the nobel prize when your theory is confirmed by experiment you dolt. you don't just get one for publishing some theory.

>>7053904
>Sting theory creates measurable, quantifiable results about the world. Hence it is science.
KEK'D hard! fucking shill.

>Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics
George Ellis& Joe Silk
16 December 2014
Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

>>7053726
no

>>7052659
>implying engineers are smart.
Top kek

Meanwhile mathematics is sitting at 45% women.

>>7055450
because getting a math degree is literally easy as fuck. that's what dumb sluts get to teach middle school math

>>7055468
>implying anyone teaching at a middle school has a degree in mathematics.
This is what engineers actually believe.

>>7055450
>undergraduate math degrees are hard
lol
no

>>7055475
>buttblasted mathfag can't come to terms with the fact that his major isn't the hardest
must really rustle your autism

>>7055475
Confirmed for going to a shit school.

>>7055487
>>7055483
>>7055476
>>7055475
there's always a cabal on incapable engineers pretending they are superior here... It must get mad rusty being bad.

I mean I know I took an easy degree, but it wasn't math, and I know yall probably can't formulate a single rigorous proof ( no analogies aren't proofs ).

>>7055592
This is a bit better

Can I still post my infographics or has this thread gone too far into the shitstorm to turn back?

>>7055611
No, please continue.

>>7052659
Science requires "intelligent" individuals, which means that average of 101 still means the average girl is incapable of doing SEM, the IQ distribution is bigger for men which means that on average more men have that bare minimum of 120+ required to succeed in science.

This exemplified by how there are far more women in the easier SEM majors which means there is no real problem about "a lack of interest" and/or "stigma", most girls just can't hack it in more difficult programmes like engineering (which has a 50% acceptance rate for women; most of them just drop out)

>>7055613

>>7055621

>>7055623

>>7055625
Ooh, gonna dump my the planets series next, they make for an excellent wallpaper set.

>>7055627

Dumping the Scientific set first

>>7055629

>>7055631

>>7055632

>>7055634

>>7055636
I don't know why there's pointless baby math on here, but the fun facts are interesting.

>>7055638

>>7055639

>>7055640

>>7055641
Be back in few hours with the normal set.

>>7055639
>>7055640
Holy shit, I thought those were EvE screenshots from the thumbnails.

>>7055667
Same here ,thanks to the small and numerous text on the edge of the screen

>>7052659
>in a room of 25 engineers 3 are women
in othe words, 22 are virgins

>>7055782
You're thinking about scientists, engineers are alpha and have plenty of sex with other engineers

>>7055431
>This is why sci is shit - elitism wasn't ruthlessly enforced. If you don't know about a subject STFU and politely ask simple direct questions. Otherwise lurk.
I'm >>7053765 abd I stand by my opinion. The very definition of science is testing your hypothesis with experiments. If you don't do that, you aren't doing science.
I'm not saying it is necessarily useless, but it isn't science.
E.g: math is extremely useful, but "experiments" are not necessary and often misleading in it, it is NOT science.
If everything was science it would be called S, not STEM.

>>7055611
ask me anything about nuclear phys/engineering

>>7055830
>The very definition of science is testing your hypothesis with experiments. If you don't do that, you aren't doing science.
you're a fucking idiot. there's a difference between an experimental physicist and a theoretical physicist.

>>7055846
How does that disprove my point?

>>7053616
Fuck you and your homo shit

>>7055852
because science is more than just experimenting. someone has to come up with a concrete theory and then it's tested

>>7055439
I agree, the experiment is proof that the theory is good.

This doesn't mean we should immediately discredit theoretical work that is not immediately experimentally verifiable.

String theory leads to predictions that will be experimentally falsifiable in the future, like Higgs/Kibble/etc.'s work in the past.

Hell, by this metric, my entire masters is pseudo-science because I'm a theorist.

>>7055859
I wasn't arguing about string theory or whatever being pseudoscience, i was just arguing with that guy who apparently doesn't realize that you don't just get a nobel prize for a theory

>>7055855
But that theory must be falsifiable by experiments. It it can't it isn't a scientific theory.
The fact that theoretical physicists don't run the experiments themselves doesn't mean they shouldn't think that their theory will need to be tested sooner or later. Otherwise we could call Theology a science too.
I'm not trying to say that theoretical physicists aren't scientist, not at all. I get the impression we're implicitly talking about string theory, but I know absolutely nothing about that so I would never say anything about it. My first reply was to >>7053665 and what I said is just that if a theory can't be tested is not a scientific theory, ignoring whether what he said was true or not.
If this wasn't the case, I could come up with a theory that says that imperceivable massless unicorns move photons and all other particles around and call it Science. You can clearly see that this theory actually works, it explains perfectly how particles move, but it can't be disproved. This is why it isn't science. This is way solipsism or the "we live in a simulation" theory aren't science.
I'm not using the term "not science" in a derogatory way. I'm a God believing engineer, I think both Engineering and my faith are very important things, but I would never call them Science (well, Engineering is partly science, but not all).
>>7055859
>String theory leads to predictions that will be experimentally falsifiable in the future, like Higgs/Kibble/etc.'s work in the past.
Perfect. Then it is falsifiable. Maybe not now, maybe not with our current technology, but it is. Hence, it is science. It isn't a confirmed scientific theory, but it is a scientific theory nonetheless.
The problem is that >>7053665 was talking about something that CAN'T be tested. It's not about whether it can be tested now or in the future, the problem is that if it can't be tested at all it isn't science.

>>7055868
That was me. You get a Nobel prize for a theory that is then verified later. So work in currently un-testable theories is useful, and is science.

The question was weather we should dismiss work that cannot be tested immediately as being pseudo-science. Anon said we should. I gave an example of somebody winning a Nobel prize because they did just that.

>>7055883
>The problem is that >>7053665 was talking about something that CAN'T be tested

>>7053665 was talking about "most of modern physics", which is a very non-specific term. >>7053665 has no idea what "most of modern physics" is. None of it is un-testable, other wise it wouldn't be Physics.

Long story short: >>7053665 was talking out of his ignorant arse.

>>7052644

>>7055815
kek

>>7055592
>capitalizing sapiens
I know it's a small error but it's so basic.

>>7055883
>Perfect. Then it is falsifiable. Maybe not now, maybe not with our current technology, but it is. Hence, it is science. It isn't a confirmed scientific theory, but it is a scientific theory nonetheless.
The problem is they keep changing string theory so that evidence is only found at energy ranges outside of what we can produce, once we're able to produce them.
Evidence for string theory should have been found at the energy ranges capable with the LHC, but after no evidence of string theory was found, the theory was changed to require higher energy levels.

This is stupid, and not science.

>>7056485
This is the definition of science!
>I have a theory.
>It makes a prediction. (that X happens in a certain energy range)
>Let's try to falsify it.
>We find that X does not happen in said energy range.
>Great, then something must be wrong with our theory.
>We change it to fit with experiment.
>We test it again.
>Repeat.

>>7052659
>no sample size listed
>no p values
>thinking any of that data is significant

However i guess men are graduating college at a lower rate that women across all majors and schools. This could also be due to the fact that more women are accepted into college.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/

>>7056530
And when we don't find any evidence of string theory at higher energy levels, they will change the theory to require even higher energy levels. And when we don't find any evidence of string theory at those energy levels, repeat to infinity.

This isn't science. Their predictions turned out to be wrong, making it a shitty model. Simply increasing the energy requirements while changing nothing else about your failed model is borderline delusional.

>>7056578
fun fact: white women benefit more than any other group from affirmative action.

>>7056594
Fun fact : that is not true on a per capita basis.

>>7056593
Nope, you just don't understand it. It's a far more complicated process than just "muh more energy"

>>7056578
Its a infograph not a study you pretentious scrub.

>>7056692
>Its a shitty infograph
FTFY

>>7055468
In the US most states require a BS in education to get K-12 certification. Without that all you can do is be a sub.

>>7055611
Go one.
Please go on.

>>7055801
I worked for him the summer we confirmed this.
About 8% of them didn't seem to mind but the rest...
I got bit several times.

>>7055431
You know there are plenty of science forums where only qualified, degreed people in a given field are permitted to register.
Why don't you go to one of those?
This is 4skin.

>>7052659
>girls have higher IQ's
>IQ
>and get higher grades
>grades
>implying these mean anything
Typical feminazi.