/sci/ - Science & Math

cancer research
meditation

fradulent things I don't personally consider to be STEM but that most people do:
climate research
psychology
economics

>>9424455
IUT

>>9424464
>climate research
subtle /pol/tard.

>>9424483
>another poster spooked by the /pol/ bogeyman

>>9424488
>Implying you aren't a /pol/tard who every day posts about the "pol bogeyman" while not getting the irony of the fact that you do it to protect pol's image.

It's time to go back!

>>9424495
Are you okay? It sounds like /pol/ is renting out a good chunk of your head space for free

>>9424500
No, just the usual. I just wanted to browse my good ol' /sci/ but I can't escape retards like you, but I get comfort from the fact that I can call you a retard and at least you are sentient enough to know you can't argue against it.

>>9424504
>No, just the usual.
What's wrong?

>>9424455
Climate change
Psychology (does not include neurology)

>>9424464
>economics

Hate math because you're bad at it, or just never taken more than one economics course?

>>9424559
>Hate math because you're bad at it
I don't see the relevance.

Sociology

>>9424567
>Sociology
not STEM

>>9424559
Economics isn't a hard science or everyone would get rich in the stock market. It doesn't follow the scienftic method.

>>9424569
He didn't even read the OP he just wanted someone to here his opinion.

>>9424565
Practical economics is just applied mathematics for constrained optimization. There's no 'science'/observation to it, it's the study of maximizing or minimizing target variables given limitations in other factors. Calling it "fraudulent" means you either irrationally hate the idea of math being useful in some situation or just have a very serious misunderstanding of what economics actually is

You didn't think economics grads get paid to have opinions about public policy or the macroeconomy, did you?

>>9424464
there is more math in cancer research than you think

all of gene of interest delivery methods (there are kinda many) are chaos theory subjects

>>9424570
>economics is the study of the stock market
>economics is the study of the economy

Can you believe it's 2018 and people like this are still out there

>>9424585
>There's only one type of economic study
>Macroeconomics don't exist
>Behavioral economics don't exist
That doesn't change the fact that no form of economics follow the scientific method, so therefor it is a soft science. This really isn't hard to understand. Here, you seem to be on the slower side of the spectrum so I'll make a flow chart for you.

>does it follow the scienftic method?
>yes
>then it is a hard science
>does it follow the scienftic method?
>no
>then it is not a hard science.
Let's apply our new toy shall we?
>does economics follow the scientific method?
>no
>then Itnos not a hard science
See how fun the scientific method can be?

>>9424586
Economics doesn't try to be hard science, I don't know why you insist not being a science is somehow a point against it. Science is a scam, it's unreliable. Math and economics don't need experiments and guesswork like science does. It's about the manipulation of numbers to arrive at a conclusion about what is, rather than examining data to make inferences about what probably is. In this way, it is math, not science

In any practical sense outside of being interesting popecon for highschoolers, no, macro and behavioral economics do not exist. Not the same field at all. You're referring to the field of "greater psychology"

>>9424464
brainlet detected

>>9424593
>Economics doesn't try to be a hard science
Good because it's not.
>Science is a scam
Not if it follow the scientific method. That's the point of the scientific method.
>Math and economics don't need guess work
That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method. Hence why we have axioms and formulas. They work that way EVERY time. That's why they pass the scientific method.
>Still denying other types of economics don't exist because you don't like them
That's the same shit you were claiming up here >>9424559
Stop being dense stupid. These aren't arbitrary definitions that I made up on the spot for this thread. There's actual reasoning behind economics not being a science any more than psychology, criminal justice or any other science effected by social factors. It cannot be a science if it is effected by social factors, because social factors aren't something that can be measured to have empirical evidence as social factors are changing all the time. Again, this isn't hard. This isn't something I made up to argue with you, these are definitions going back to the 16th century. Smarter people than you have tried to debate this, and smarter people than you have been wrong. C'est la vie.

>>9424586
>the scienftic method
No such thing.

>>9424464
Cancer research for sure. The best possible treatment is worse than the disease itself. Also, any bill proposing reduced funding for cancer research will instantly ruin a politician's career.

>>9424611
>because I said so
K.

>>9424614
>>because I said so
Who are you quoting?

>>9424614
define "the scientific method"

>>9424605
>That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method

You're so fucking dumb dude. Holy shit. Do you have no clue what math is or how it's done? You think it's a science? You think mathematicians follow the scientific method?

How the fuck is math "science" and applied math magically not "science? Give too much real-world functionality or context to math concepts and it suddenly has to be proven by experiment and not math? Do you have any idea what you're saying here or are you just throwing out any response to act like you didn't just fundamentally misunderstand the purpose behind the field of economics?

>>9424615
Some guy that posted some stupid shit and then nothing to back up his opinion. I assumed if he wasn't an idiot and had some actual evidence he would have posted it instead of dragging out 2 or 3 more posts for no reason.

>>9424605
>That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method. Hence why we have axioms and formulas. They work that way EVERY time. That's why they pass the scientific method.

This is called a model, you dense fuck. Every branch of science has them, but you need to actually be able to perform experiments to validate the model you're proposing. Economics is more like philosophy where you just stick with your worldview no matter how retarded it is.

>>9424617
"The scienftic method is a body of techniques for investigating, acquiring new knowledge...." Copy and paste that into google. I really don't want to type out the entire definition. But the fact remains that it is clearly defined and has been for hundreds of years. Why are you asking me?

>>9424623
>Why are you asking me?
Because you keep posting under the assumption that "the scientific method" is well-defined.

>>9424628
Well that's because it has. Since like the 16th century. I could have Googled that in 2005 and received the same definition. I could have looked it up in a chemistry book from 1950 and it would still have the same definition.

>>9424634
>Well that's because it has. Since like the 16th century. I could have Googled that in 2005 and received the same definition. I could have looked it up in a chemistry book from 1950 and it would still have the same definition.
You're welcome to post it, I don't know why you think I would be interested in all these falsehoods when all I've asked for is a definition.

>>9424634
I don't get how one person can be so dense. He's asking what the magic procedure that makes this, apparently very specific (it's not) method so concretely powerful (which it isn't). The goal of the "scientific method" has remained the same, but the actual method behind it has always been both inconsistent and changing. It's not some sort of one solid "truth filter", it's a bunch of different ways people, at one point or another, thought maybe gave validity to their guesses

>>9424638
And you're welcome to google it. I don't know why you think I would be interested in copy pasting a definition when all I've asked for is for you to read the definition.
>>9424642
The magic procedure is the scientific method. It's not a truth filter, but anything outside of it can't be taken as truth.

>>9424605
>That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method. Hence why we have axioms and formulas. They work that way EVERY time. That's why they pass the scientific method.
My nomination for most unintelligent and uninformed post of 4chan history

>>9424674
terrible bait

>>9424674
>I don't know why you think I would be interested in copy pasting a definition when all I've asked for is for you to read the definition.
What "definition"?

Psychology is
Ok, haters be btfo
Physics is why
if not phd
Just why
Math is calm cool etcollected...
Just don't forget where you're coming from
Biology is why, just why

>>9424570
Look up Renaissance Technologies lad
You can get rich by only useing hard sciences

Are there any people here who are not just trolls?

>>9424613
??? So we should stop researching so that people can continue dying of cancer and so that treatments stop improving.

>>9424790
someone make this a banner image, the innocence is breathtaking

>>9424520
You're gonna need a bigger bait

>>9426272
Yes? We obviously won't find a cure for all cancers or even one honetsly. Just let people die and we can focus on other things that are more important... If people's lives were this important we wouldn't be having paid college educations, shit-tier internet that's years behind rest of the world or for-profit prisons. Cancer research is nothing but an expensive "cover-up" to give people hope, just like politicians mention "god" and other brainlet voodoo shit that's not just to get popular.

>>9424585
Economics is not a hard science.
Economics is not even a soft science.
Economics is not science.
Economics is pure liberal arts.

Definitions are hard for this one.

>>9424621
>All models are wrong. The models are useless.
>Expects a model to perfectly replicate reality
>Doesn't even know what a model is

>>9427757
Pure mathematics, baby. Straight from the 'The Book' itself. Take it or leave it.

>>9424464
brainlet alert

>>9427757
if economics is not a science, how come countries with good monetary policies have high wages and countries with poor monetary policies have low wages and debt
south america is a great example, they used to be rich (argentina and venezuela are good examples), but because of terrible fiscal policies they are at the bottom of the barrel now
meanwhile, countries with strong economists at the helm (usa, japan, germany, the uk, france) thrive and prosper even in times of worldwide crisis

>>9427793
>>9427797
>>9427801

All three of these comments are irrelevant.

Definitions are hard for some people...

https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/economics-is-an-art-not-a-science-30124/

>>9427793
>>9427797
>>9427801

University's give out Bachelor of Arts degrees in economics.

The fact we're even having this conversation only proves how utterly and irredeemably retarded some people are.

>>9424605
>Mathematicians: "10 + 15 = 35"
Laymen: "Yeah yeah for sure I follow"
>Economists: "$10 + $15 = $35"
Laymen: [sucks air in through teeth] "I don't know... What's the methodology behind this?" [shifts uncomfortably in seat] "is this peer-reviewed? Is there hard science behind this or is this just blind ideology? You can never tell with this economics thing. Just look at the 2008 crash. That was economics, right? I think it was, anyway, right? Because that was fucked up lol. If economics is so sound why does stuff like that happen. Idiot."

>>9427817
I have my B.Sc. Economics, so whatever you're trying to say by pointing out that it's a B.A. program is pointless. Things vary from university to university, you know

>>9427822
10+15 is 25 though

I guess you learned how to be so smart with your BSc in economics.

>>9427826
I made a typo. Just crucify me I guess

>>9427822
You're a dumbass... But I'm glad you've come up with a good way to rationalize it all in your puny little brain and be a happy, "productive", member of society.

>>9427828
>I made a typo.

I don't believe you. I think you're retarded.

>Just crucify me I guess

Yes. This is the internet.

farts, not the act but the theory that we can as a species generate enough horse power of flatulence to economically and geometrically power an entire ass load of a city. You hear me? I'm talking saving million- no, ZILLIONS of kaching. *(Oh right and energy, that is the number one priority here.) Flatulence energy son. Remember, if you rip one, they will come. Give these people AIR! (from an asshole of super soldiers)

>>9427822
>10+15 = 35
holy fucking shit we found the stupidest brainlet on the board, cant even do basic math.

>>9424580
>You didn't think economics grads get paid to have opinions about public policy or the macroeconomy, did you?
Not him, but I unironically thought this.

>>9424570
Stock market is finance not economics, ya fuckin idiot. And yes, people do use finance or math to get rich off the stock market ALL THE TIME. The "95% of people lose" is a meme. All of those people are brainlets. If you have 125+ IQ and less than 1 million dollars, it's very easy to double your money every year.

>>9427822
>10+15=35
LMFAO
WATCH HIM BACKPEDAL AND SAY HE DID THIS ON PURPOSE TO "SHOW MATHS CAN BE WRONG TOO"

>>9428055
>is finance not economics

finance is a hard science.

>>9424455
quantum mechanics
>inb4 muh pilot waves

>>9424580
I have met many economics graduate students who do exactly that. The vast majority do not know more than basic linear models, which are clearly vast oversimplifications, possibly misguided entirely.

>>9424455
>What are some research subjects
(1) why shilltards are obsessed with the word "meme"
(2) why shilltards don't know the meaning of "meme"
(3) why shilltards never Lrn2meme fgt pls

>>9427822
>10 + 15 = 35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6lGzEidRj4

>>9424455
>What are some research subjects in STEM that you consider are a fraud?
artificial intelligence

>>9424455
pure frequentist inference

>>9424455
"""mindfulness"""
pure math without even geometric motivation

>>9428360
So what's your preferred theory?

>>9430954

also

>SETI
>human space exploration
>computer """engineering"""

>>9424559
I don't even understand how money works so economics is hard for me.

"molecular" biology
evolutionary biology

>>9424464
>cancer research is fraud

Is this a thread for brainlets and/or highschoolers?

>>9431289
hes underage, probably thinks hes smart because hes in "ap" physics

>>9431311
>hes underage
I'm not a "he".

>>9431314
everything else was true tho nrite

>>9424455
general and special relativity

>>9424605
>That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method. Hence why we have axioms and formulas. They work that way EVERY time. That's why they pass the scientific method.
Holeeey shiiiieeet. That's some dank stemlet material right there. LMFAO

psychology studies are rarely replicated and honestly should just be ignored

>>9424613
>Cancer research for sure. The best possible treatment is worse than the disease itself.
>t. I don't know anything about cancer treatment

>>9431902
>social psychology papers
There, that's better.

aerospace engineering

>>9424455
Theoretical Computer "Science"

>>9427754
Most autistic post I've read today. Fresh off the boat from reddit, buddy?

>>9424455
Quantum by far

>>9424455
The Theory of Relativity. It makes for great science fiction and is a beautiful theory in the same way a great work of art is beautiful or a painting or some such. And in a similar way Relativity is only to be appreciated qualitatively rather than quantitatively. There are no relevant quantities in relativity theory or practical applications to the theory. Same with String Theory, but it is even more beautiful.

>>9432158
What's your opinion of Turing's work?

>>9431274
Why is this?

>>9432681
No practical application? How about the GPS navigation system?