/sci/ - Science & Math

>/sci/ dislike this book
[citation needed]

>>9462212
Does it have any math in it? No, then get >>>/out/.

>>9462216
There was a whole thread bashing that book not too long ago.

>>9462227
Why?

>>9462231
jesus nuts

>>9462227
>There was a whole thread bashing that book not too long ago.
Did you try reading that thread to see why /sci/ dislikes it?

/sci/ isn't too different from /mu/. Expect anything widely known and popular to be bashed and ridiculed for the sake of just being contrarian. It makes them feel superior.
Book was a good read.

>>9462239
>They're attacking muh pop-idol!
>They must be butthurt!
>Everyone noes Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Nye are the bestest scientists evar!!!

>>>/reddit/

>>9462255
>they don't like what I like
>they... they must just be contrarian!

I hate this meme

>>9462262
Quote the part where I said because I like it.
Kill yourself, retard.

>>9462264
>Book was a good read.

Anything by Dawkins is immediate trash.

>>9462256
hallelujah brother, doing god's work

>>9462219
>physics
>mathematically rigorous
Quit using buzzwords and you'll be able to defend your opinions.

>>9462256
>butthurt literal who vs black science GOD
sad!

>>9462264
And? Where did I say you can't disagree because I like it?

>>9462255
Any board that uses the term dad rock should be deleted

>>9462212
Because they haven't read it. They still haven't recovered from the butthurt that a christian god isn't real.
But I'm disappointed in Dawkins for a different reason. Anyone who has read "The Selfish gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" knows it's simply not possible for Dawkins not to be a race realist. Yet he's not doing his duty as a science spokesperson to speak the truth and instead only talks about topics that are "academically safe"

>>9462227
>There was a whole thread bashing that book not too long ago.
well if you read that thread then maybe you would know why this great hivemind that is /sci/ collectively hates the book

>>9462459
why is the youtube music reviewer and Sam Hyde on that list?

>>9462459
>Ben Shapiro in the list
>>>/pol/

>>9462539
better for him not to show his powerlevel so that his arguments and work don't get dismissed as 'racist pseudoscience'

>>9462212
Probably haven't read it. The Professor supervising my third year undergraduate reseach project actually recommended that I read it. Despite crowbarring in a chapter to shit on religion the rest of the book is good.

>>9462219
Biology is chemistry.

>>9462459
Please do not call Mike Stoklasa a pseud, he's the leading film critic of his generation.

>>9462760
The book is pretty good but god damn I hate Dawkin's tone and he takes way too long to get to the point

>>9462459
>Dawkins and Stoklasa
Unlike the others on the list these 2 actually accomplished something

>muh antitheism

>>9462459
Is math related to science?

>>9462459
Boogie is the utmost smarterst intderteuktal in the world. I think you should stop being so low IQ and accept the fact that you will never achieve anything close to this glorious human beam

>>9462212
>promoting atheism on a christian science board
pls leave

>>9462740
wat

>>9462219
http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/pgbook/pgbook.pdf

>Evolutionary biology
>No math

Pick one.

>>9462459
yuri bezenov, ok

>>9462256
Confirmed for not having read the book. It's a topic Dawkins is actually an expert in, written long before he was a celebrity.

>>9462459
Who should we listen to?

If Dawkins looked more like Ben Stiller I’d have a lot more respect for him.

>>9462740
Uhh I dont think Ben Shapiro is polish

>>9462771
Mike < Jay <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Rich Evans

>>9462459
>Hitchens
>Chomsky
>Krauss
>Varoufakis
>Dawkins
>Pseudointellectuals

>>9462256

And your point is......?

He's a science communicator and that's what the general public know him as. No regular person will actually know about the scientific achievements of Neil (inb4 there are none) -- but that doesn't matter to them.

Do you actually think regular people that aren't in science know any of the scientific achievements of Carl Sagan? Hell the fuck no.

They're science communicators. Be happy that we have them and stop being so bitter.

>>9462212

Tried to read this book but its so fucking boring and verbose. I stopped about 2/3 thru.

Dawkins spends too much time setting up these elaborate analogies only to get to his point 20 -30 pages later. Its written for brainlets to understand.

I get what he was saying but he could have conveyed it in an essay, but he fluffed it up and published a book to make his shekels.

>>9466103
>He's a science communicator

No, he hardly ever talks about science anymore.