/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12609707]

What is your least favorite branch of science or math?

[Anonymous No.12609743]

science: any of the soft sciences

math: numerical analysis/optimization

[Anonymous No.12609746]

>>12609743
>implying soft science is science

[Anonymous No.12609749]

>>12609746
well the hard sciences are all good so i can't pick. maybe chemistry then?

[Anonymous No.12609779]

>>12609707
Ecology.
Nobody in the field seems to have any ideas about the normative bigger picture. I understand that sciences seek to describe reality but moral relativism has totally ruined the field's students to make value decisions about ecological situations.

[Anonymous No.12609797]

>>12609707
whatever the cs fagineers are good at that I'm not

[Anonymous No.12609877]

>>12609707
Math, since there is a point in which schizophrenics take over the way it's taught, they stop giving a shit about efficient learning and instead will pretend you're a no lifer autist like them so they make you slog with useless generalizations and proofs.

[Anonymous No.12609912]

>>12609707
Statistics and I guess chemistry because of all the memorization. I wanted to love it but the actual work is so tedious and counterintuitive.

[Anonymous No.12609924]

>>12609707

[Anonymous No.12609929]

>>12609924

[Anonymous No.12610408]

>>12609707

Environmental "Science". Shit has nothing to do with Science. Its just activism masquerading as science

Elementary Algebra. Learned it very well and got bored with it ages ago. it's an inconvenient chore at this point

[Anonymous No.12610457]

>>12609779
Oh you mean they tend to be against you destroying the ecological systems they study for financial gain?
And the "normative big picture" is what exactly? Infinite growth and humans turning earth into a desolate wasteland in order to conquer the galaxy or something??
LOL take your market worshipper cultist mindset and your Good Book of Economics, and shove it up your ass.

[Anonymous No.12610461]

taxonomy

[Anonymous No.12610493]

I hate all of math and science

[Anonymous No.12610812]

>>12610493
then what brought you to /sci/?

[Anonymous No.12610846]

>>12609707
>What is your least favorite branch of science
Theoretical physics/cosmology because I think most of it is just mental masturbation at this point.

[Anonymous No.12611327]

>>12610457
y r u mad? i dont usually visit this board.

[Anonymous No.12611333]

>>12611327
what board are you from nigga? This is /sci/ we some thuggz around here

[Anonymous No.12612598]

>>12609707
Every branch that involves God and faith is NOT a science, also this >>12610846

[Anonymous No.12612606]

>>12610812

[Anonymous No.12612617]

>>12609707
Atmospheric science. I see how some people could find it appealing, but I found it extremely dry and eye-wateringly boring.

[Anonymous No.12612627]

quantum physics. whole lotta malarkey

[Anonymous No.12612651]

>>12610408
LOL you know you're a joke right.
You got "bored" with elementary algebra LOL
more like you're basically a retard
so who gives a fuck what you think about science.
fuck this post is practically an advertisement for environmental science.... because when a fucking retard doesn't like something, it's probably not half bad LOL

[Anonymous No.12612660]

>>12609707
Using gaussian elimination in solving 4x4 matrices

[Anonymous No.12612664]

>>12609707
geology is for retards but it's still cool.
biology is filled with retard/psychotic torturers that are literally too stupid to into math, but i can't hate it completely because some of it is actually useful
computer science isn't science
i guess once you've cross the line from applicable mathemetics to math that is just retarded number games you enter the realm of least favorite.

[Anonymous No.12612810]

>>12609707
Geology. Science confined to a study of a single object is not a proper science.
Math branch? Classical geometry. R.I.P.

[Anonymous No.12613927]

>>12609707
Science: Climate Science
Math: Numerical Analysis

[Anonymous No.12614035]

>>12609749
Astrophysics & Cosmology. It's a crock of shite.

[Anonymous No.12614040]

>>12610408
>Can't do elementary algebra.
Bro. If you can't even understand how to solve x4 - x2 + 1 = x2, then you're not qualified to say anything about science.

[Anonymous No.12614044]

>>12614035
what's wrong with them?

[Anonymous No.12614062]

>>12614044
In a nutshell: pic related. We barely know anything about the stuff, and yet claim such knowledge. Full of circle jerking mysticism.

[Anonymous No.12614090]

>>12614062
well i mean if you find things inconsistent with your current theory then you have to make them consistent somehow. sometimes adding extra variables/quantities is just what you have to do

[Anonymous No.12614113]

>>12614090
Adding in things with zero evidence for their existence, e.g. dark energy, isn't an extra variable. It's plugging a hole in your failing model to justify why it's a valid model. Consider, for example, if I said that God created life. Then I eventually discover that life had evolved over time, where the eye had evolved countless times over life's existence, all life traced back to a common ancestor via microbes, etc. What I should do is discard my mistaken model that God created humans. If, instead, I merely modify my model to say "ah, but you see, God created the first microbe therefore he created Human and us in his image!", I'd be engaging in intellectual dishonesty and most certainly not engaging in any kind of scientific rigor.

When a scientific model fails, you discard it. You don't just patch it with unverified bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12614148]

>>12614113
well the problem is that there are only one or two kinds of things that are inconsisten with the theory whereas the theory works perfectly for everything else. you could certainly come up with a new theory but i imagine it's very hard to do so or else such theories would be at least a bit more popular.

[Anonymous No.12614166]

>>12614148
What is this "everything else" of which you speak? The lambda CDM model has been falsified. Dark energy is merely an ad hoc hypothesis.

If your model accurately describes some things, and then fails to describe other things it's supposed to, then it's a failed model.

[Anonymous No.12614202]

>>12614166
wait a minute.. if a model is unfalsifiable, then you can't say it's been falsified. that's a contradiction

[Anonymous No.12614214]

>>12614202
Think more.
>Original model: lambda-CDM. Status: falsified.
>Ad hoc hypothesis: dark energy.
>lambda-CDM has now been modified. Status: unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.12614218]

>>12614214
it was invented to account for dark energy

[Anonymous No.12614248]

>>12614218
... No it wasn't. lambda-CDM was invented to describe the big bang. This model elegantly worked to explain how a super dense spacetime can explode into the universe today.

Then it was discovered that the rate at which the universe was expanding was accelerating. lambda-CDM BTFO. Cosmologists convene, asking how that can be. They say that clearly their elegant model cannot be wrong. So they ASSUME it's correct, and then explain that the accelerating expansion of the universe must be explainable via some mass-energy term. We know literally nothing about it, so just call it dark energy.

Review your timeline. CDM models created around the 80s. Accelerating universe discovered in 1998.

[Anonymous No.12614291]

>>12614248
ok you're right, lambda-cdm was invented few years before discovery of accelerating expansion. the thing is it only became mainstream precisely /because/ it fits so well with accelerating expansion. and if anything the fact that it was invented /before/ that discovery just makes it more convincing, since dark energy actually /isn't/ an ad hoc addition to it, but an original feature of the model itself

[Anonymous No.12614312]

>>12614291
>it fits so well with accelerating expansion.
It doesn't. Dark energy is a term added into the analysis. It wasn't predicted to exist, it was an ad hoc addition.
>the fact that it was invented /before/ that discovery just makes it more convincing
Your reasoning is backwards. The fact it was invented before the discovery makes it hogwash. You're telling me the premier model of universal expansion couldn't even predict the existence of 70% of this occurrence? Fuck off with that mate.
>dark energy actually /isn't/ an ad hoc addition to it, but an original feature of the model itself
Find me one single paper on ANY CDM model postulating dark energy for an accelerating expansion of the universe prior to 1998.

[Anonymous No.12614358]

>>12614312
dark energy is just the name given to the thing that corresponds to lambda, the cosmological constant, which was invented by einstein in 1917

[Anonymous No.12614381]

>>12614358
>>12614358
Einstein's Cosmological constant had nothing to do with dark energy nor an acceleration expansion of the universe. All it described was an expanding universe, not an expanding universe whose rate of expansion is accelerating.

The interpretation of this constant being an accelerated expanding universe was a MODIFICATION of the CDM model, and an ad-hoc introduction to the model.

[El Arcón No.12614434]

statistical mechanics in physics and probability in math

[Anonymous No.12616138]

>>12609707
Statistics. Nothing gives researchers, and readers of their papers, delusions of omniscience like exacting treatment of data sets that leave out parameters found to be crucial later on, usually by someone else who doesn't abuse it as a crutch for making inferences.

[Anonymous No.12616167]

>>12609707
Two of them. Evolutionary biology and early universe astrophysics, including the Big Bang and universe evolution. They are both fairy tales for materialists.

[Anonymous No.12616172]

>>12616167
unclamped and uncut

[Anonymous No.12617988]

Bump

[Anonymous No.12618068]

>>12609912
I love Math but hate stats with a passion but it turns out to be the branch of math I use the most.