/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15043755]

>a large proportion of /sci/ tends to look down on philosophy as a mid-wit humanities field for people who can't do math and thus can't understand science
>a large proportion of /sci/ has a very high opinion of IQ and highly G loaded tests. The GRE is one of these
>grad students in philosophy have had a comfortable lead over all other fields for years in terms of GRE scores despite the the selection bias of philosophy PhDs making you unemployable
>philosophy has a higher average quantitative GRE than many science fields, including information science, and jumps to the top if you look at subsets like philosophy of science or logic, excluding existentialists, postmodernism, etc.
>philosophers created computer science and many whole areas of mathematics
How do we explain this?

[Anonymous No.15043761]

>>15043755
>a large proportion of /sci/ tends to look down on philosophy as a mid-wit humanities field for people who can't do math and thus can't understand science
Because it is so.
>a large proportion of /sci/ has a very high opinion of IQ and highly G loaded tests. The GRE is one of these
Except for pol retards most anons shrug off IQ threads
>grad students in philosophy have had a comfortable lead over all other fields for years in terms of GRE scores despite the the selection bias of philosophy PhDs making you unemployable
>philosophy has a higher average quantitative GRE than many science fields, including information science, and jumps to the top if you look at subsets like philosophy of science or logic, excluding existentialists, postmodernism, etc.
>philosophers created computer science and many whole areas of mathematics
Cope

[Anonymous No.15043780]

I will throw an answer out there: philosophers may have invented many of the innovations in math or big new fields like computer science, but as soon as their ideas became relevant and people got around
to developing the new ideas into a coherent field people could study, philosophers dropped those ideas and went back to jerking off to their abstractions.

Yeah, philosophers might still work in comp sci problems, but it's only the most bleeding edge theoretical stuff and most of it will end up being wrong or only coherent to like five people in the world and thus as good as wrong.

Example: I've seen philosophy of physics papers that were obviously written by smart people who know high level math that goes over my head, but they're so abstract and theoretical as to be uninformative and unfalsifiable.

I applaud the successful ones for finding a way to get paid to read across any field they want and mentally masturbate all day though.

[Anonymous No.15043794]

>>15043755
/sci/ like literally every single board on 4chan, is filled with morons.

[Anonymous No.15043883]

>>15043755
How many IQ points is one STD?
>communication and journalism
Kind of unsettling to see that they are retarded. Explains why so many of them are useful idiots though.

[Anonymous No.15043890]

>>15043755
Only a few incels on this board don't like philosophy. Don't worry about them they will never make any substantial contributions to science or philosophy

[Anonymous No.15043907]

>>15043755
ive got nothing against philosophy

ive got something against modern "philosophers" that are so lazy and narcissistic they can't be bothered to engage with now-standardized fields of study in STEM to have a basic understanding of the academic world's interpretation of the universe. Imagine trying to dedicate yourself to philosophy and being incapable or unwilling to learn Calculus.

[Anonymous No.15043939]

>>15043755
I thought Electrical Engineering was supposed to be the high IQ engineering major. EEbros....are we really dumber than Philosophaggots?

[Anonymous No.15043947]

>>15043794
/thread

[Anonymous No.15044042]

>>15043907
Who does this? What philosophers of science can't do calculus lol?

I don't see many authors doing this sort of work who are going to struggle with undergrad math courses.

[Anonymous No.15045051]

>>15043794
define "filled"

[Anonymous No.15045061]

>>15043907
set the denominator to zero in Newton's law of gravitation.. if the distance between celestial bodies were zero, as they are in a Black Hole, what does this do to Newton's law? if the inventor of the calculus was wrong about gravity, is the calculus still required to understand and explain the Universe? such as its age, origin, or other physical properties? perhaps the Lord does not want His Universe understood by a select few; but rather makes it accessible to everyone.

[Anonymous No.15045127]

>>15045061
Two seperate centers of mass can't be 0 apart, otherwise they would be the same ovject. So law of gravitation can never have a denominator of 0

[Anonymous No.15045161]

You're failing to understand the entire point. /sci/ makes fun of midwits who read stuff like Nietzsche and think they're geniuses. Some "philosophers" have made some contributions, that doesn't excuse the millions of midwits who read their ethics books and think they're enlightened.

>>15043794
Speak for yourself

[Anonymous No.15045410]

GRE is a test for mental retardation. Congrats, you are not cognitively disabled. Great job. Now for a real test of intelligence take an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.15045415]

jfc philo majors are retarded. they're all within one stdev of each other and are thus indistinguishable. it's like bragging about a 109 iq to someone who has a 104 iq

[Anonymous No.15045625]

>>15045127
Does the sun's gravity not effect its constituent parts? Discrete objects and centers of gravity don't exist.