[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 340x440, sci challenge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1656902 No.1656902 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/entists, solve five easy problems demonstrating you know what the fuck you are talking about or you're not qualified to post here and should GTFO.

So let's hear it. /r/ing that mods ban all who don't reply to this thread with good solutions.

>> No.1656908

NO HOMEWORK HW THREADS SAGE SAGE SAGE GO GO GO

>> No.1656917

>implying anyone here wants to discuss science
>implying that this isn't /rel/ - religion vs. atheism

>> No.1656930

Chlorinated hyrdocarbons are highly carcinogenic but fuck off OP

>> No.1656932

1. did it in college
2. college
3. same as 1 and 2
4. same as 1, 2 and 3
5. Main objection: HERKADERK GOD DID IT NOT YOU SCIENCE YOU DEMONSPAWN
Define science: testing things then making conclusions based on those tests to predict future test results.

Do I win?

>> No.1656941

>OP just learned something new during first day of college and wants to brag about it on /sci/

How cute.

>> No.1656948

I can answer number 5.

The scientific method is inherently flawed because it is made by humans, it is not even close to being perfect.

It lacks the ability to understand more complex things than humans are used to, therefore science is basically just humanized accounts of what they see around each other.

We have deduced that since humans are flawed, their methods, and therefore science, are flawed.

Since these methods fail to account for more complex things than human brains are able to comprehend, they fail to believe in God.

God is likely to exist; however, science can not be used for or against God, since science is humanized.

>> No.1656945 [DELETED] 

I can answer number 5.

The scientific method is inherently flawed because it is made by humans, it is not even close to being perfect.

It lacks the ability to understand more complex things than humans are used to, therefore science is basically just humanized accounts of what they see around each other.

We have deduced that since humans are flawed, their methods, and therefore science, are flawed.

Since these methods fail to account for more complex things than human brains are able to comprehend, they fail to believe in God.

God is likely to exist; however, science can not be used for or against God, since science is humanized.

>> No.1656951
File: 68 KB, 894x700, Science_And_Faith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1656951

<-------definition of science

>> No.1656955

>>1656948
>implying god isn't manmade

herp derp

>> No.1656957

>>1656948
go away aether/ego/crow

>> No.1656962

No questions about God or atheism. Sage

>> No.1656970

>>1656941
Look, I realize my questions are entry level but I don't think you should be too strict about who gets to post here, or we might end up not having any posters at all except you and me.

>> No.1656971

>>1656955
Prove it. Like I said, you can't use science to prove/disprove God since it is inherently flawed.

You have to thinker about the HIGHER Truth, I understand if you cannot comprehend this...

>> No.1656987

1. Assume that A=[a,a+b] for some b!=0. Then sup A > a+b > a, while inf A < a, so obviously sup A > inf A.
2. Yeah I'm not gonna do that.

>> No.1656984

>>1656971
>implying I would argue god on a science board

herp derp

>> No.1656992

>>1656984
>implying you can, at all

>> No.1657001

I'm sorry OP but you are like the trash that is ruining this board. "durrr, lemme put some God/philosophy question on a FUCKING SCIENCE test". Faggots like you that think this board is "philosophy/religion/science/math"

>> No.1657008

>>1657001
You need to be able to describe the scientific method or I (or anybody else) won't believe you understand it. U mad bro?

>> No.1657019

>>1656902

Protip: totally chlorinated is misleading, a non-polar alkyl group is an ortho/para activator.

Therefore o-chloro(alkyl)benzene v p-chloro(alkylbenze)

Maybe both.

>> No.1657024

>>1656902
1) i am shite at mathematics
2) first year physics bsc
3) first year physics bsc
4) A-level chemistry
5) fuck off

>> No.1657035

Chemistry is for faggots. Looks like OP is a faggot. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

>> No.1657055

>>1656902
how was the first day of collage scumbag

also recital from memory is not science

>> No.1657080

>>1657055
>he's implying a person who went to college needs to recite the solutions from memory

>> No.1657098

>>1656902

The only one of these that everyone should be able to answer is the last one because the questions should only be related to each /sci/entists specific field. Not everyone is a mathatician or a chemist.

>> No.1657130

1.b is not clear.

>> No.1657159

>>1657080
Lol you have no idea.

I've met grad students (mostly medical/biofags) who didn't know shit about their major. They just remember stuff for tests.

>> No.1657169

I'm a sciencefan, not a scientist. I don't NEED to know how to answer these questions.

>> No.1657220

>>1657098
No objections. I guess my opinion has the unanimous support of my fellows.