/sci/ - Science & Math

he's right, we know universal rules of physics whereas our understanding of biology is 99.9% earth based

>>7310978

>>7310978
But that's true. In fact, the farther from pure science you get, the more complex the field. Sociology is one of the most complex scientific fields out there. It's so complex that it can't be studied in the same way hard sciences can. That's why it's so open to bias and lack of scientific reasoning.

In terms of complexity, Physics<Chemistry<Biology<Psychology<Sociology

>inb4 autistic /sci/entists misinterpret what I say and cry "SOCIOLOGY ISN'T HARDER THAN PHYSICS!"

>>7310978
Biology is mostly an ad hoc work of observation and trivial reasoning. An average person can do that,

If you call "complexity" the amount of characters used to describe all the knowledge in each area, that's probably right. But I believe that's inadequate - regarding conceptual complexity, his claim is ridiculous.

>>7310996
That would be the complexity of the problem you're dealing with, not of the body of knowledge(if it can be called that way) extracted from it, which is "the science" itself

>>7310994

Theology:
>god did it

>how?

>mystery have faith :^)

>>7310996
>>7311007
>>7310978

>>7311016
>math more complex than physics

nah

>>7310996
>pure science
As soon as I saw those words, I discounted your opinion as trash.

>>7311021
wait got those mixed up, meant the other way around

>>7311016

m8 flipping a burger is not hard and it never will be

>>7310978
I think Dawkins is right and wrong. He is right that the subject matter of biology is more complex than the subject matter of physics.

However, most biology work is pretty mundane. I have a friend who is a molecular biologist and she concedes that most of the work is hack work. And that there is not a huge premium for intellect in the field. And MB is one of the more arcane parts of biology. The bottom line is that the subject matter is so complex and so far beyond us that we are reduced to stamp collecting and looking for simple heuristic patterns.

With physics, the subject does seem to be within our grasp and as such it attracts the very smartest people (ie men) exceeded in this regard only by math. The premium for smarts is very high in these fields. A moderately smart but hard working researcher will achieve nothing.

One of the challenges of fields like pure math and physics is the need to build layers of nested abstractions. This is very difficult intellectually and creates huge barriers to entry.

So while biology is inherently harder than physics, biologists are generally not anywhere near as smart as physicists.

Other fields like sociology are for the most part so hard, and empirical verification of theories so impossible, and they are so politicized, that most people in the field resort to making stuff up. Who becomes pre-eminent in the field is more a matter of political skills than actual ability to research things.

>>7311096
indeed, biology being so statistical/undeterministic, it is hardly a science currently

I've heard him say the exact opposite.

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and Experiment. (Oxford Dictionary) so biology is indeed Science. If you need to insult other science branches maybe yours is to boring.
Theology is hardly a field of science because it's nothing about observation its arguing about a book and not even questioning it but maybe I'm misunderstanding here.

>>7311023
>wait got those mixed up, meant the other way around

Then you're an idiot. Physics has all the complexity of math plus the added complexity of specificity. Chemistry has all the complexity of physics plus added specificity. Biology has all the complexity of Chemistry plus added specificity etc. etc. etc.

Maybe your problem is that you don't know what Complexity means? Wikipedia is thataway -->

Dawkins invented maymays, u jelly?

>>7310994

Biology is more complex than physics though. The ecosystem of Earth is a few orders of magnitude more complex than anything physics deals with, the fact that most of the things that physics deals with can be boiled down to relatively short equations should be a tipoff.

Biology deals with so many things that are harder to understand than how a pendulum swings or how electricity moves through circuits, I mean the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe, we'll probably have Relativity and Quantum Mechanics working together well before we fully understand the structure and function of the brain.

>>7310978
As a biologist I can tell you Dawkins is fucking retarded, and a joke to the community. He's the Neil Degrasse Tyson of biology. Panders to semi-intellectual reddiotrs that just want to hear how god is not real.

Dawkins contribution to science is a shitty theory that was disproved since the early years of genetics.

>>7311357
Wait, NDT isn't respected in the Astrophysics community?

On a related note, what do you think of human chemistry/physics/thermodynamics?

http://www.eoht.info/page/Human+chemistry

Does anyone get the impression that there's a problem with the level of abstraction and complexity with it?

>>7311357
>As a biologist I can tell you Dawkins is fucking retarded, and a joke to the community.

such as every bastard of the academia and of the entertainment industry.

>>7311096
Nice post

I'll be working in biology but I accept the truth

The man can't stop getting in trouble with others.

He's partially right that biology is more complex than physics though. Part of the reason for that is humans started learning the mechanics of physics much earlier than biology. Another part is that biology requires a lot of leg work and complex tools just to investigate said material.

With that said physics still has a long way to go in terms of building tools for manipulation/ navigation though. It also has the harder job of supposedly proving how to universe came to be while biology pretty much has a semi solid theory on how life started (at least on earth).

>>7310978
You guys don't know what you're talking about. Biology isn't just random facts about hawks. Biology can get interesting such as how the eye may have formed.

>no citation

Why would aristocratic be smart? Philosophy is just about the meaning of life: no more intelligent than your average layman

>>7311347

But if you knew EVERYTHING about physics (and chemistry), all knowledge of biology would follow.
A differential equation can be relatively short, but it's not 'boiling down' something and showing it to be simple. Just because a polynomial equation has more terms and different powers and coefficients, doesn't make it more complex or harder to understand.

>>7312414
No, the domains of chemistry and biology are so far apart that knowing chemistry doesn't tell you dick about biology. It's not just computationally hard; it's completely infeasible. Chaotic systems, and enormous ones at that... there is no hope. Physics and chemistry have a bit more overlap, but if you've ever done any computational chem, you know that accuracy in physics simulations vanishes beyond a few atoms, and you have to resort to chemical knowledge to figure out stuff like equilibria and organic reactions.

>>7311096
You're overblowing a lot the needed intelligence to do math or physics, or the contribution of "moderately smart physicists". Genius and extremely intelligent people are rare everywhere, even if they are less rare in physics research. Specialization, training and persistence are essential, particularly now that we have too much physics for any single person to learn.

Also a lot of physics is stastistical, though not to the same extent as biology.

>>7310978
He's right about "complexity", in the way that has been explained already itt. For what it's worth, I once heard a physics professor tell me the same thing (and the guy had worked at the CERN).

His idea of Aristotles is also not completely retarded. Aristotles was one of the first to conduct massive empirical studies of animals, he literally invented logic and is a precursor to science no matter what the "hurr set science back for a millenia" retard say. The people who conceptualized the scientific method were answering to arguments started or seminally influenced by Aristotles.

That said, Dawkins' media intervention are generally befitting of a retard.

>>7312414
You have to understand that being able to modelize something using equations is only the first step. Then you have to find a solution (or an approxation thereof) to that equation, and then you have to find an efficient way to compute that solution. Finally you have to find a way to use that computing to deal with real-life situations.

Simply put, modelizing take all the efforts of the experimental and theoretical physicist working together, solving mobilizes the whole array of the mathematicians' technique, computing demands all the knowledge of the computer scientist, and using is basically what all engineering is about. And from there on follow changes accross whole societies, that can only be dealt with by economics, politics and law and accounted for by social sciences (to the extent they can be dealt with and accounted for).

Oversimplifying here, but you get the idea. From the equation to proper understanding and use to the actual consequences for people around you, the whole spectrum of science is required in full. It's no trivial problem.

You're using the example of polynomials here. But the degree of a polynomials makes a huge difference, we can solve all polynomials of degree 4 or lesser, but beyond that there is no general method. And simply knowing that (that there is no general method) mobilized all algebra from Renaissance Italy to industrial-era France.

>>7311022
K. Find a flaw in waht I said. Go out and apply the same principles you do for physics and figure out why some people like scat porn.

Biology and physics go together. They correlate.

Philosophy is about the continue deconstruction of what we think normal, all are philosophers if they do science.

>>7311204
>Chemistry has all the complexity of physics

No, no it doesn't.

>>7310994

Give me a break, theology is nothing more than applied literature.

>>7312447
>literally invented logic

symbolism maybe.

But it had been practiced long before him, the Sophists made their trade teaching it.

>>7310978
People must be losing interest in his atheism rants...gotta keep the kids fed

Biology can describe incredibly complicated systems, but the ****study of biology**** is nothing more than memorization and recognition of how one thing is working in relation to another. Even then one could argue that it's biophysics, and almost all of it is actually biochemistry.

Nice try meme-kins

>>7312783

>but the ****study of biology**** is nothing more than memorization and recognition of how one thing is working in relation to another

confirmed for not taking a biology class outside of high school

>>7312614
literature is just applied linguistics

>>7311096
evolutionary biology tends to attract the smarter biologists. Dawkins may have said a lot of dumb stuff recently, but he is one of the best evolutionary theorists since Darwin

Biology studies "complex systems". This doesn't mean that Biology is more complex than physics or chemistry or any other science. Imagine you made a drawing of a 1x1 square of concrete. It would be very detailed, showing all the small bumps and grooves and pieces of trash and such. If you wanted to draw the whole block, you wouldn't want to give so much detail to the sidewalk, because there's other things to focus on. Neither picture is better, because they both have the same amount of complexity on the page, just a different scale of focus. That is the difference between complex systems, like living creatures, and simple systems, like chemicals.

>>7313102
Linguistics are just applied glottology

kek, this thread is what happens when we wonder off too much from the real world.

Lets all get back to the things that are real, objective, not subjective. How do we separate bullshit and actual science? By use. If it is useful, then it is science. If it is useless, then its not. So pure math and philosophy is closer to (f)arts degree in usefulness, therefore it should be on bottom of what ever scale. The less objective use it has, the less it is objectively connected to the universe we are all part of.

Otherwise, artists are the most pure scientists because muh feeeeelings and muh interpretations and muh subjective meaning that doesnt mean shit for anyone but me but it should still be important for everyone and everyone should give money to me.

>>7313720
You need to be 18+ to post here

>>7311711
>Why would aristocratic be smart?

>aristocratic

>>7313741
That's not an argument. If you take usefulness out of equation, even art can be considered as science.

>>7313777
If you think the criteria to define something as science is it's usefulness then you are literally mentally retarded

>>7313720

You do know that a good chunk of modern science is based off old math that would be (during time of original conception) useless in practical everyday activities right?

Also the artists being scientist comment is not far from the truth since (at least old world artists) utilized some principals of chemistry to get the needed colors for paintings and stained glass windows.

>>7313777
actually art uses science quite a bit. spatial relationships, color theory, visual and cognitive perceptions, perspective. even if the artist is unaware of these elements, they are still being used. all of the current graphic designers and trained artists understand this as well as the old masters to a certain extent

>>7310978
>And I now discover he considers Aristotle the smartest person ever.
He was though

>>7310978
>physics is simple because its just "balls colliding"
He has physics mixed up with engineering.

>>7313857
Plato was better. Just like Augustine was better than Aquinas.

>>7313872
MUH FORMMMMMMMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>7313869
Saw that one coming

>>7313872
>>7313857
They were both pretty fucking autistic, but if we have to make a comparison Plato was 10^24 times worse. All he did was imagine stuff out of nowhere, at least Aristotle was trying.

>>7313919
>Your typical faggot who have never read any greek text but thinks he knows all greek philosophy

>>7313992
> live in Italy
>philosophy compulsory for 3 years in high school
> read the apology of socrates, crito and simposium integrally
> study all others works from both philosophers

I know some shit my dear nigga

>>7310978
I love Dawkins tbh

>>7314184
He's said some decent stuff. Too bad he's pretty much as dogmatic as the religious people he hates.

>>7314170
>I know some shit

The favorite expression of someone who doesn't know any shit.

>Italian
>know some shit
pick one guinea

>>7314193
>Too bad he's pretty much as dogmatic as the religious people he hates.
I always hear this criticism of Dawkins thrown around, but there's really not much substance behind it. Never have I seen him act anywhere near as dogmatic as a fundamentalist Christian.

I also like how there is absolutely no source for the statements in the OP. Please somebody prove me wrong so I can file Dawkins with the rest of the retarded pop scientists.

>>7310978
ITT: a bunch of high schoolers argue about their opinions on fields they know nothing about and will never contribute to, just because some demode charlatan no one has ever cared about called their pet subject stupid.

Gotta love /sci/.

>>7310994
>philosophers
ok kid

>>7314205
Dawkins tries to proselytize atheism and doesn't I think the reason his adherents don't see how dogmatic he is is because they demonize evangelical Christians so much that it'd be impossible for any real person to be anywhere near that bad, especially someone they idolize.

>>7314220
>Only talk about things you have PhDs in!

>>7310978
The man invented memes. Did you really expect much from him?

>>7314229
>Dawkins tries to proselytize atheism
So? What specifically makes Dawkins dogmatic? In every video I've seen of him, he always speaks calmly and argues his case reasonably.

>>7311358
He has 13 publications, 5 of those as first author. In order to be respected, you should have about 5 times that number of pubs, a fair number of them as 1st author.

>>7314234
Atheism is not believing in god and not LETS MAKE EVERYONE ATHEIST RELIGION IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL

>>7314234
Dogma doesn't mean you get angry and irrational. It means you hold a belief as objectively true and adhere strictly to that belief. Dawkins believes taht atheist is the objective best religious belief and rejects that religion might be best for some people.

>>7314246
>RELIGION IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL
When has he said that?

>>7314247
Dawkins believes that society would be better off without religion. I've never seen him claim that atheism is "objectively true."

>>7314251
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

>>7314265
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw14Ua93M6k

>>7314265
Do you even read what you link?

>Dawkins has said that the title The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.[1] The sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous.

Biofags,

When I leave my used jogging clothes to jam the window open am I effectively airing them out or just attracting unwanted bacteria etc?

>>7314271
>just attracting unwanted bacteria
into my room/clothes

>>7314251
>>7314268
You're being pedantic and your desire to see religious people "BTFO" is hurting your ability to notice that Dawkins is a condescending asshole to religious moderates every time he speaks with them.

"Yes, I don't think you're one of the bad ones, but your faith useless anyway."

>>7314274
Being condescending isn't the same as being dogmatic which was the original discussion.

>>7314322
No, but thinking that society would be better off without any religion when there's no actual evidence to support that is.

>>7314326
Why do you say that? The most religious places on the planet are all third-world. Also, education and being religious is negatively correlated.

>>7310978
>Is Dawkins jealous of physicists and mathematicians?

Probably, because he's extremely passionate about science but he knows that his single greatest accomplishment is just being able to write about it well.

>>7314338
And those are spurious. It doesn't consider moderate religion at all. And neither does Dawkins. He dismisses them as if they're just people afraid to go all the way to atheism.

>>7314341
His greatest accomplishment is coining the term "meme".

>>7314352
Maybe in terms of public reception, but he's going to be in the history books as a science popularizer and writer.

>>7310978
Physics is easy.
Imagine how easy it is to model tiny billiard balls colliding compared to a living organism composed of on the order of 10^25 billiard balls.

>>7314444
>easy
I think that's what pisses the autists here off. Biology is harder if it's approached by the same methodology physics is. The reason it's not "harder" in practice is because it's so complex that you simply can't approach it the same way you approach physics. There would be so many variables, so many reactions and moving parts, etc, so you have to study it differently. The way we study it doesn't involve as much math, but a lot more memorizing certain things, so for people who struggle at math, biology is way easier.

>>7314460
If Biology is so easy why did it take until 1859 for people to have any idea of what was going on?
Galileo had a perfectly usable mechanics, Kepler a perfectly usable optics, ptolemy a empirically accurate celestial mechanics hundreds of years before Darwin, the best biological theory before that was simply 'durr hurr god made them'.

>>7314476
I'm glad that you completely ignored my entire post, or lack even the most basic reading comprehension skills. Maybe give it another shit, eh sport?

>>7314495
Nice to see you entirely ignored the content of my post too.

>>7314508
I didn't. You didn't reply to my post. I fucking said that biology as a field IS more complex. But how it is studied is not "harder". The coursework for a biology student isn't harder than the coursework for a physics student. You're retarded if you think it is. Social science is even more complex and hard to understand than biology. Are you implying sociology is harder to do than biology?

>>7312870
I've taken 4.

Gen bio 1 and 2, cell biology, and genetics. All the same shit. Cell biology introduced the complexity of the cell, but again, it's no different from any bio course when it comes to working through a problem. Know the information or don't. End of story.

>>7314444

Model tiny Billiard Balls is to Physics, what the Reproductive System of a Mammal is to Biology.

You little cunts see small simplified equations and you think that is all there is to Physics.

>>7314476
In science you have to ask why. There was nothing in the Bible that talked about gravity, or optics, so people asked why. The same does not happen in the case of Biology. Every one that studies Physics learn to respect great man like Darwin and Kepler. The same does not seem to happen in Biology.

Dawson is a cocky dumbass
Hawking drools all over himself
Tyson is a nigger
At least Bill Nye made my fridays in elementary school fun.

>>7310978
Aristotle was a smart guy.
Made a ton of mistakes, but was really starting a lot of the practices scientists follow today.
Also, although I don't condone Dawkins opinions or methods, I will never understand why each field has to make such a big deal about "which one is harder"
Wittgenstein was an engineer turned linguist and was smarter than just about every scientist of his time. Your major and field don't reflect individual intelligence; so why even compete on the matter?

>>7311330
Logic is a form of maths.
Modern logic = topos theory.

>>7314663
>Wittgenstein was an engineer turned linguist and was smarter than just about every scientist of his time.
How exactly have you determined that?

>>7314663
>shut down Democritus over atomos
>smart guy
I see why Dawkins likes him, though...

>>7314664
Logicians deal with several other types of logics besides classical, constructive, and linear logics (the main ones we use in math). They also developed those long before Topos Theory was developed.

It's also worth mentioning that computer scientists are also doing a lot of work in Topos Theory that deals directly with the logical aspect of it (at my university the only people doing Topos Theory work are in the computer science department).

There's also a ridiculous amount of stubbornness amongst the mathematical community when it comes to talking about things at the ridiculous level of rigor that logic demands.

I do believe that mathematics and logic are intrinsically related but I don't think anyone could seriously claim that logic is just a form of math.

>>7314710
Logic
>making logical deductions based on axioms and rules of inference

Mathematics
>making logical deductions based on axioms and rules of inference

Hmmmmm

>>7314729
Logic
>Defining a formal language, a proof system, truth-values, and then studying what said system is capable of and comparing it to other systems.

For an analogy:
Logic
>designing different types of engines and figuring out what types of vehicles they could power.

Pure math
>Worrying specifically about cars and trucks and figuring out everywhere where said cars and trucks can possibly drive.

Applied Math
>Learning to drive a car or truck.

Science
>Just using a car or truck to get a ride somewhere.

Engineering
>Using only one type of car for everything and crashing it often because they're too distracted sucking each other's dicks.

Technician
>Becoming very skilled at hailing a cab or hitchiking.

>>7311396
Fuck you that is hideous.

>>7314444
What is Statistical Mechanics? Thermodynamics?

Derp.

>>7314876

>>7311007
>trivial reasoning
You are one ignorant cunt you know that?

>I'm competent in my stem classes so I can pretend Im competent in all of them

>>7312560
You could with perfect knowledge of the person

>>7312601
Is there some aspect of chemistry that's unaffected by the laws of physics?

>>7315739
Which is impossible. Which is the fucking point.

Goddamnit, why are autists so triggered by the idea that their area of study isn't the most complex thing in the universe?

>>7315758
Its specialization. There are obviously physics that can be done that are more complex than biology.

You could model our entire ecosystem and everything in it for example, in physics but if that model produced anything viable it would be done in the name of biology. Sciences are not complex. They're methods of documentation. Reality is complex.

>>7314476
People had functional models of heredity and artificial selection for millennia before Darwin wrote his works. The only thing missing was the extrapolation of those observed phenomena onto a far more complicated system that is ultimately run on the same mechanics.

>>7313119
Smartest post in thread screencapped

>>7313119
Nice.

>>7315877
Thank for the warning

>>7315769
>You could model our entire ecosystem and everything in it
Except you literally cannot. There are millions upon millions of variables. We are not even close to being capable of recreating a model of our ecosystem. We can't even accurately model the weather.

>Reality is complex.
And if you apply science to a more complex part of reality, then that field is more fucking complex.

Does this hurt your epeen or something? You do realize nobody is saying biology is HARDER than physics, right? Nobody's questioning that your physics brain is stronk. They're saying that it's less complex. It's more basic. That's why you can reduce it to models and math.

>>7311357
fedora.jpg

>>7312764
>>7314246
>>7314247

But is Dawkins wrong? I've read a couple of his books. He speaks passionately about how Evolution is true.

He also cites that he gets frustrated with religion because many people use religion to outright dismiss Evolution and science. I get that.

I could see how to mainstream biologists Dawkins is very pop sci, but is he wrong? Can you elaborate as a biologist?

And as far as being strident about atheism, I get it, when 40% of modern 1st world populations want creationism taught in public schools, and idiots hijack planes and behead people because of religion, I don't blame any reasonable person who gets frustrated.

>>7316791
>many people use religion to outright dismiss Evolution and science.
And many don't.

And that will always be where the logic of Richard Dawkins and all evangelical atheists end and where their feelings begin. No. Frustration is no excuse for illogical dogma. If you think 80% of religion is bad, but you think 20% is good, you can't just ignore the 20% as if it's a zero-sum game. It isn't a zero-sum game, and in the same way you could promote atheism, you could promote moderate religion.

>>7314234

Yes, they are the most hypocritical public figures alive. THey use the methods that they denounce. THey want people to critize the ennemies of N. A, but they cannot stand critics themselves. They advocate the scientific method, but fail to apply it to their doctrine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvkbiElAOqU

look at how ridiculous he is.

>>7316667
>the tongue does this
>the stomach does that
such complex
much interesting
wow

>>7316878
You do realize you're just making yourself look like an idiot, right? That you think all of the interacting cells, which themselves are composed of smaller bits, which are controlled by the brain through complex electrical functions can be reduced to "x does this"

>>7316971
>the cells do this
>the nerves do that
wow

>>7317059
is this bait?

>>7317132
>unironically being interested in biology

>>7312616
>symbolism

Symbolism is a nineteenth century Europe literary and artistic movements, and symbolic logic is posterior to Aristotles by about 2 millenia.

Sophists taught rhetoric, which is the art of winning arguments and relies on clever (not rigorous, not aimed at truth, validity, correctness or soundness per se, not designed to make us see more clearly the content of our own statements and the processes of making them) and often deliberately confusing use of language. Unless you believe defense lawyers are logicians what sophists did cannot be described as logic.

Aristotles was the first guy we know of to write comprehensive treatises on questions such as what is a statement ? what is the difference between a well-formed and ill-formed statement ? what is the difference between a statement being well-formed and a statement being true ? what is proper reasoning ? what are the different kids of reasoning ?

Of course Aristotles didn't invent all forms of reasoning (there are a lot of informal reasonings who are not quite logical, or not yet logical, that we usein everyday life), but he was the first in recorded history to dedicate much attention to logic itself, and his views on logic dominated the discourse in Europe and the Muslim world until the nineteenth century. Guy had the longest-lasting unbroken (if not unchallenged) rule over a whole field of intellectual inquiry in all history. You don't achieve that simply by being merely smart or even very smart.


>>7314338
>The most religious places on the planet are all third-world.

Very vague observation that doesn't mean anything. The US is more religious than Western Europe as a whole, Germany is probably one of the most religious countries in Europe, modern european science was invented when the continent was still largely religious, and actually the first universities and major hospitals (as in, hospitals who are also research and teaching/visiting centers) appeared in heavily religious places.

>>7317157
I'm not. But I think it's pretty retarded to discredit an entire--and extremely important--field of study because of some misplaced sense of elitism.

>>7314604
A lot of maths is also like that tbh. I'm talking gradschool level maths (from my own experience that applies to differential geometry, spectral theory, probability theory, statistics, arithmetic and field theory, and no I don't come from a shit uni).

At the end of the day it's about getting familiar with the concepts, with the "language" used to deal with them, and then digging deeper by practice, questioning and self-challenging. People really underestimate the importance of simply getting familiar with stuff in the most theoretical parts of science. All of that is nothing more than "know (sufficiently) the information or don't" and "

Perhaps research is different but then let's wait until actual respected researchers in biology and physics weight in itt.

>>7314675
>guy didn't agree with a theory that has the same name of a modern physics particle
>therefore is must not be smart

Nigga pls. Atoms in democritus' sense have little to do with the atoms physicist consider (indivisible, plenty of sizes and shapes possibles up to the size of a planet and the shape of whatever irregular polygon you might think of, no interaction between atoms besides schocks, etc.).

Also that is like 1/100th of Aristotles' work.

in this thread
>physics and math freshmen grandstanding
>people doing a bad job explaining why they are wrong

>>7317815
That's just this board in general.

>>7312425
Fucking 1000% underrated post. Well done bro.

>>7313720
Science doesn't need to be useful you pleb. google: Ig Nobel