/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 121 KB, 768x576, occult_images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:17:57 2010 No.1830514 [Reply] [Original]

Why exactly has no scientific community ever conducted an even remotely extensive study on the occult and psychic phenomenon?

Every time something interesting and unexplained happens it's always "HERPITY DERPITY, WE TRIED AND COULDN'T FIND AN EXPLANATION. NOW WE'LL JUST WALK AWAY AND PRETEND TO FORGET ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AND SO SHOULD YOU IF YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A "RATIONAL" PERSON.

Is the scientific community afraid to embrace the idea of supernatural forces, just like it's banned the discussion of God and aliens within international collaborations? Which if you think about it, is a pretty close-minded filter mentality for those who claim to be the proprietors and seekers of truth. Einstein must be rolling in his grave.

We could have solved the mystery of the pyramids DECADES ago, and contributed something far more productive to human progression than just minimizing the size of cell phones in the last 20 years.

tl;dr Modern science is incompetent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:18:57 2010 No.1830522 there is no mystery of the pyramids

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:18:57 2010 No.1830523 File: 60 KB, 590x436, ouija-board.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Pic related. The ideomotor effect is false and a bullshit scapegoat for whenever science finds something it can't explain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:20:57 2010 No.1830532 File: 21 KB, 505x339, James_Randi_crop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Because we have.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:24:57 2010 No.1830548

>>1830532
fucking this.

He has a million dollars cash in a safety deposit box intended for the person who can demonstrate any form of paranormal powers in a scientific double-blind test.

All of those people who generate your so called "unexplained phenomenon" are strangely uninterested.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:26:57 2010 No.1830556

>>1830522
The fact that the Great Pyramid is positioned at exactly the crossroads of the longest lines of latitude and longitude on earth with each side perfectly aligned with the points on the compass rose isn't a mystery? The fact that it's been proven that structures with pyramidal shapes have an unexplained positive affect on organic and inorganic elements kept within them isn't a mystery? The fact that the Great Pyramid cannot be penetrated by cosmic ray scanning radar isn't a mystery? The fact other cultures in the new world had built almost identical pyramids to early Egyptian steppe pyramids isn't a mystery?

sage Fri Oct 1 02:26:57 2010 No.1830558
File: 100 KB, 392x345, 1267342717763.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1830514
>Why exactly has no scientific community ever conducted an even remotely extensive study on the occult and psychic phenomenon?

They have.
Conclusions are always the same, no supernatural phenomina exisits.

\thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:28:57 2010 No.1830561 >>1830556 >The fact that the Great Pyramid is positioned at exactly the crossroads of the longest lines of latitude and longitude on earth So the pyramids are on the equator?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:30:57 2010 No.1830568 >>1830556 longest lines of latitude and longitude Oh LOL. He doesn't know that all the lines of longitude are the same length, or that the equator doesn't even run through Egypt.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:30:57 2010 No.1830569

>>1830548
Maybe it's because people who exhibit such powers are those of a certain state of mind who aren't greedy pricks or live in other countries and can't come down to America just to see if some old ignorant fart will keep his promise to give them a million dollars.

>>	sage Fri Oct 1 02:31:57 2010 No.1830574 >>1830556 No, none of that stuff is a mystery. Alot of it isnt true either. Where are you getting such bullshit from?

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:33:57 2010 No.1830586

The scientific community has spent a large amount of time dealing with "magic." Today's science largely ignores the occult because of the generations of work ALREADY DONE in debunking it.

Biology replaced earth-mother mysticism. Chemistry replaced alchemy. Physics replaced the gods of the heaven through astronomy and meteorology. Psychology and medicine replaced the believed effects of demons and witches. These all include centuries of effort.

You are ignoring the data that does not support your beliefs in order to continue believing in something you uphold for reasons other than truth. Modern reinterpretations of ancient superstition do not deserve the time of day.

James Randi, the Skeptic Society, and others give the occult far more honest time than it deserves.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:36:57 2010 No.1830591 >>1830569 can't come down to America James Randi is off kicking ass on a European tour at the moment I believe.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 02:50:57 2010 No.1830617
File: 36 KB, 649x483, vaccinelol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you don't live in the real world, fuck you.

Fuck religion

Fuck superstition

Fuck pseudoscience

Fuck the antivaxxers

Fuck nationalism

Fuck racism

Fuck ignorance.

Thank you.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:01:57 2010 No.1830656
File: 212 KB, 2000x800, 1285912199867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1830586
>Biology replaced earth-mother mysticism.
Yes, a science whose fundamentals are not only logically flawed but have no means of being verified, and remain largely dependent on the idea of conveniently lost transitional fossil records. Not to mention failing to account for vast evolutionary improvements and defections between humans and apes.

>Chemistry replaced alchemy.
And verified the possibility of accomplishing its primary goals like transmuting lead into gold.

>Physics replaced the gods of the heaven through astronomy and meteorology.
Really? I don't remember that happening. As I recall in fact several cultures throughout the world with a vast array of unexplained astronomical knowledge (some of which is so extensive and precisely recorded we haven't advanced enough to verify; see Dogon) maintained rigid ideas of stars and specifically the sun as being the sources where matter is created, several millenia before "science" got around to verifying their beliefs.

>Psychology and medicine replaced the believed effects of demons and witches.
Pertaining to psychology and demonic possession, you cannot verify either way. And medical knowledge if anything is one of the greatest supporters for the occult and supernatural phenomenon. See Edgar Cayce, Ze Arigo, the historical records of Imhotep, etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:01:57 2010 No.1830658 File: 89 KB, 500x334, 6225692_73da197b1a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1830617 Well put sir!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:02:57 2010 No.1830660 >>1830617 Man you're such a douche bag. I consider myself a "man of science" or whatever you want to call it, but when I see people like you it makes me want to roll my eyes and let out an "oh brother".

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:02:57 2010 No.1830661 >>1830569 You know what's waaaaay more likely, though? They are all making it up and that comment is just an excuse.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:03:57 2010 No.1830663 File: 94 KB, 682x335, 1276451039793.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1830656 Wow, you are really trying.... I guess you troll alot? 2/10

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:04:57 2010 No.1830667 >>1830656 All I see is HERP DERP I would rather be exorcized than cured cause I live in bizzaro world!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:05:57 2010 No.1830671 >>1830660 Sometimes a blunt attitude goes a long way in getting the point across. As the founder of New Scientist Magazine put it: "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:05:57 2010 No.1830672 >>1830660 You are not a man of science. If you were, you'd know that methodological naturalism is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:07:57 2010 No.1830677 >>1830667 All I see is >HERP DERP ABANDON ALL LOGIC BECAUSE MY WAY IS RIGHT AND I DONT HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE SATISFACTION OF MAKING ANY REAL POINT SO ILL JUST SAY HURR U STUPID LOL. HOW DO I KNOW IM RIGHT? BECAUSE I THINK IM RIGHT! DUH!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:11:57 2010 No.1830686 OP, instead of saying that we should accept the paranormal based on a lack of negative evidence, I say we should disbelieve the paranormal based on a lack of positive evidence. Bring me a ghost in a cage, and I'll believe you.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:12:57 2010 No.1830691
File: 36 KB, 221x246, Kermit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1830663
>>1830667
Ah yes, condescension. The last refuge of the weak-minded. I should have expected as much. After all, we live in a deterministic universe where free will is an illusion according to your all-knowing physicist gods, and as such it's unlikely either of you could take a moment to listen to ideas that fly in the face of your conventional perspective. How very much like what modern science has become.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:12:57 2010 No.1830694 >>1830672 >Implying to be a naturalist you must also be an enormous douche-bag who absolutely rejects even the slightest possibility of anything not yet proven being real, and is a loud-mouthed, self-important faggot about it.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:14:57 2010 No.1830700
File: 71 KB, 268x265, 1285752761619.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Why exactly has no scientific community ever conducted an even remotely extensive study on the occult and psychic phenomenon?

Might be because the claimed psychics NEVER fucking agree to join in on the festivities.
Seriously, ask a claimed psychic and they will wriggle out with some "OMG YOU'LL JUST SET UP THE EXPERIMENT SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO PROVE ANYTHING!!!"

Seriously, have you even ATTEMPTED to talk to one of these cooks?
It hurts my view on humanity man.

>for mengele
cool captcha, 4chan

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:16:57 2010 No.1830707 >>1830694 Naturalism means exactly that. I can't help it if people get butthurt when their idiocy gets exposed. apparently self-important now means "dares to express an opinion". I will not respect harmful and laughable packs of fairy tales.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:20:57 2010 No.1830721 >>1830707 >Naturalism means exactly that. No it doesn't. If you're going to call yourself something because all the other edgy scientists are doing it, at least find out what it means first.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:21:57 2010 No.1830727

>>1830707
(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations

yeah, that's not rejecting every possibility of anything not yet proven.
it's just thinking most things have some sort of natural explanation, and not automatically resorting to "spirits done done it" and leaving it at that.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:23:57 2010 No.1830740

>>1830656

>Yes, a science whose fundamentals are not only logically flawed but have no means of being verified...

How are the fundamentals of biology logically flawed? The premise that replicators with differential success in a non maximal environment will lead to a change in the replicators over time is a logical NECESSITY given the truth of the premises. The foundations of biology are logically sound deductively and proven inductively.

>And verified the possibility of accomplishing its primary goals like transmuting lead into gold.

Absolutely. But this is no boon to alchemy because its methods never amounted to this goal--science's did.

>As I recall in fact several cultures throughout the world with a vast array of unexplained astronomical knowledge..

Should we be surprised that our ancestors studied the sky and carefully recorded its procession? Should we be surprised that many cultures saw these mysterious objects in the sky as sources of power or matter? No, there is nothing mysterious here, simply humans being human.

>Pertaining to psychology and demonic possession, you cannot verify either way.

Physical explanations suffice in almost all cases. There is no reason to posit anything more. Occam's razor.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:31:57 2010 No.1830765 >stars and specifically the sun as being the sources where matter is created butthatswrongyouflaminghomosexualnigger.png

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:33:57 2010 No.1830775 OP has never heard of the noetics research facility. Here is a hint for you op. All psychic 'powers' tested come back negative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetic_theory

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:36:57 2010 No.1830781

>>1830677

All I see is

Being "open minded" means that you have to give equal attention to every proposal, regardless of its merit. The truth lies somewhere between fact and fiction and anyone who says "no, actually it's just fact" is being CLOSED MINDED WAKE UP SHEEPLE HOMEOPATHY CHEMTRAILS CRYSTAL HEALING

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:39:57 2010 No.1830789 >>1830514 Umm, Because it defies the laws of physics. You need the theory before anyone will actually support it. Its like saying, well I can fly around a room. When I am alone and no one is watching.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:40:57 2010 No.1830791

>>1830721
>call yourself something because all the other edgy scientists are doing it

you clueless prick

naturalist is a word pseudoscientists call scientists all the time to imply that they are close-minded (e.g. look at this snooty atheist, he only believes in da PHYSICAL world, how sad).

it's not edgy at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:41:57 2010 No.1830798 >>1830781 Answer this for me please. Do you believe the chance of there being anything resembling a soul is 0%?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:44:57 2010 No.1830804 >>1830798 not the guy you're talking to, but, no. Nobody says that. The possibility of anything imaginable existing is above 0%. Its just so low in some cases its just best to dismiss it until its probability improves through evidence

>>	Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 03:46:57 2010 No.1830810 >>1830804 But if you don't look for something how do you find evidense?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:50:57 2010 No.1830818 >>1830810 Because the things you refer to have no starting position in which to begin investigation. They are "super"natural as in, they are not of the natural world. By definition they are things that cannot be studied, and so, we don't attempt to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:50:57 2010 No.1830820 >>1830791 >Implying you didn't say "methodological naturalism is a cornerstone of the scientific method." >Calling me clueless when you didn't even know what the words in your post meant. Comedy gold here folks!

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:50:57 2010 No.1830822

>>1830798

First, "soul" has an ill-defined meaning. Second, if something exists and has significance to us, there should be a way to detect, measure, or study it. Third, non-scientific approaches to understanding this (i.e. intuition) are far more fallible than scientific approaches.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:52:57 2010 No.1830824 hey guise whats going on in here

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:55:57 2010 No.1830829 hey guise whats going on in there

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:55:57 2010 No.1830833 >>1830804 I'm sure there are plenty of people on /sci/ who would say that "the possibility of x happening is 0% because ghosts don't real."

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:57:57 2010 No.1830839 >>1830822 Yes or no? >>1830818 Supernatural things as they are believed today aren't really supernatural.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:58:57 2010 No.1830840

>>1830740
>How are the fundamentals of biology logically flawed? ...
"The fundamentals of evolutionary biology are all based on the idea of causality, or order arising by chance. Evolutionary theory holds that changes in organisms occur as the result of random genetic mutations; if one of these changes confers an advantage that allows the organism to produce more offspring, the change is likely to be inherited by the offspring and may eventually become the norm for the species, but when we look at the reptilian egg (or any number of other established features and organs) we see that numerous events must have occurred simultaneously for the development to succeed. Developments such as the durable shell, egg tooth, and so on- had to arise, according to evolutionary theory, as the result of random mutation. But between the mutations that produced the shell and those that produced the egg tooth there could have been no connection (they arose at random), nor between those concerning nutrition and waste disposal. And if there were no such connections how was the whole process orchestrated? From this point of view, the reptilian egg must be seen as representing the culmination of a series of wildly improbable coincidences."
This is just one example of many that unveil flaws of evolutionary biology.
>this is no boon to alchemy .
There's no way to know how similar alchemy would stand next to today's science if it had survived into the modern era and utilized the developments in technology, or for that matter whether it would be more or less effective than conventional scientific methods are.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 03:59:57 2010 No.1830842

>>1830740
>Should we be surprised that our ancestors studied the sky
When an indigenous African tribe details the location and distance in light years of stars invisible to the naked eye and the differences between them in color and weight, as well as preserve drawings of their precise elliptical rotations, then yes you should be surprised. To turn a blind eye to such accurate intelligence simply for being primitive to us would be the definition of ignorance. I wonder how you must believe the Maya acquired their precise astronomical data from just observing the sky.
>Physical explanations suffice in almost all cases.
I'm not saying otherwise.
>Occam's razor.
Occam's razor is NOT some end all principle to be applied to every unconventional conundrum that man comes across. It can cause one to ignore substantial information that may result in further insight into the problem or a more definitive answer the question.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:01:57 2010 No.1830847 >>1830839 >Yes or no? Neither because it's a stupid question. Until you can define "soul" in a way that actually means something, pondering its existence isn't really relevant or meaningful.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:02:57 2010 No.1830849 >this thread Oh god it's like that islamic thread all over again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:06:57 2010 No.1830859 >>1830840 >>1830842 >Alchemy compared to modern science Alchemy+modern science = Chemistry >An indigenous African tribe details the location and distance in light years... Citation Needed

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:06:57 2010 No.1830860 >>1830847 Pick a definition and then answer the question.

Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 04:07:57 2010 No.1830861

>>1830818
That's like saying it is not worth it to try and know both the position and motion of an electron. Modern physics tells us this is impossible, but it doesn't mean it's right.

As a scientist it is your duty to question both "truth" and "crazy" ideas equally, such is the way of objectivity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:11:57 2010 No.1830871 >>1830861 Its its like saying this: Scientist says: "There is no reason to believe unicorns exist, but JUST IN CASE, we better find out for sure!" Its unnecessary and impractical to investigate every little thing whose existence is not apparent.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:12:57 2010 No.1830875

>>1830840

You seem like a smart guy so I won't ridicule you. The argument from irreducible complexity is an old old creationist argument which is totally, utterly, demonstrably wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Features such as the human eye are NOT perfect. Evolution never results in "perfect" adaption. It's always haphazard and full of flaws.

Evolution has also been seen to actually occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

P.s. Please don't make the distinction between micro and macro evolution because they are same thing and biologists make no distinction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:21:57 2010 No.1830888 File: 242 KB, 1008x633, 1285846268470.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:23:57 2010 No.1830893 >>1830888 mmm, stoner food

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:31:57 2010 No.1830907

>>1830840
Christ, you're so dumb I'm not sure if I should even write this, because you will probably have smashed your computer after mistaking it for a box full of demons.

A: Eggs that cannot withstand the elements or predation perish.
B: Baby reptiles that can't get out of the egg perish.

Moving from a soft shell to a tougher, leathery one helps with A. Reptiles that lay tougher-shelled eggs have more viable offspring.

The development of a proto-eggtooth helps with B. Reptiles whose young have a proto-eggtooth have more viable offspring.

Moving from a leathery shell to a hard one helps with A. Reptiles that lay hard-shelled eggs have more viable offspring.

The development of an eggtooth helps with B. Reptiles whose young have an eggtooth have more viable offspring.

Fun fact: Some reptiles lay eggs with leathery shell and have no eggtooth. Who'da thunk it? Conservation of traits in a separate lineage IN MY NATURE?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:48:57 2010 No.1830957 File: 15 KB, 400x266, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1830888 >hurr these things look the same therefore they must be related

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 04:58:57 2010 No.1830987

I like how most /sci/ thinks that science is "finished" and will not accept any new theory until a known scientist proves it.

Of course I am not telling you to believe in new theories, but the fact that you systematically deny anything new, makes you equal to religion itself.

Any new idea is to consider, cannot be considered valid until proven, but cannot be discarded either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 05:05:57 2010 No.1831009 >>1830987 I haven't seen any new theories being rejected here. I've just seen many old long debunked pseudo-theories being shut down. Do you see /sci/ rejecting these theories: String, M, Loop quantum gravity, Supersymmetry?

>>	Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 05:05:57 2010 No.1831014 >>1830987 It is surprising how many things are unproven, but some how remain valid. lol science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conjectures#Open_problems

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 05:11:57 2010 No.1831046

thanks op, she is hot bitch in porn, i cum so hard while hurtling through space toward a decommissioned space station. slowly, i pull my knees to my chest and close my eyes as my bowels begin to expel hundreds upon hundreds of beautiful, symmetrical turds, brown as the day is long. i laugh like a young girl as my turds drift aimlessly behind me; they are as butterflies to a child frolicking in the fields of elysium.

i approach the station's docking port, flaccid cock in hand, and prepare to float gently into its inviting confines. i extend my cockless arm jubilantly, as to celebrate the majesty and depth of space, and thank jesus christ for this ultimate gift and blessing. but suddenly, my outstretched arm collides with the outer rim of the docking port, and the trajectory of my quaggy body is violently halted.

the ftes afford me barely enough time to turn his head before the turds arrive. one thousand turds, each one seemingly larger than the last. i try in vain to cleanse mu eyes of the shitsting, but succeed only in smearing my own fecal matter into a fine asspaste, which slowly seeps into my eyes and nasal cavity. i inhale three hundred and twenty four Space Turds; my lungsare permeated completely with my own shit. i hang lax, spirit broken, defeated by poop. i will never be the same. i am forever a shit faggot

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 05:13:57 2010 No.1831054 Video related to not giving a shit about supernatural shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 05:16:57 2010 No.1831065 File: 28 KB, 499x376, 1285739257431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1831014 >lol science. >proceeds to post a list of mathematics conjectures This thread is like an avalanche of ignorance.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 05:27:57 2010 No.1831108

>>We could have solved the mystery of the pyramids DECADES ago, and contributed something far more productive to human progression than just minimizing the size of cell phones in the last 20 years.

So, by solving this alleged 'Pyramid Mystery' we would have achieved breakthroughs greater than the technological advancements we have today? More powerful and compact computers has far more practical application in anyone's life than "souls" or alchemy.

It's nice to understand the past, but this isn't some mystical land of magic and dragons, the future is defined by today, not by ancient civilizations that lived (and died out) hundreds of years ago or their primitive beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 05:34:57 2010 No.1831142 >>1830514 >mystery of the pyramids What mystery? >rant about not taking some shit seriously Come back when you have evidence that any of that shit is real, and then we'll talk.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 05:38:57 2010 No.1831155 >>1830842 Sources on any of the bullshit please.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 05:57:57 2010 No.1831234
File: 49 KB, 250x250, 1280147847380.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046
>>1831046

>thanks op, she is hot bitch in porn, i cum so hard while hurtling through space toward a decommissioned space station. slowly, i pull my knees to my chest and close my eyes as my bowels begin to expel hundreds upon hundreds of beautiful, symmetrical turds, brown as the day is long. i laugh like a young girl as my turds drift aimlessly behind me; they are as butterflies to a child frolicking in the fields of elysium.

>i approach the station's docking port, flaccid cock in hand, and prepare to float gently into its inviting confines. i extend my cockless arm jubilantly, as to celebrate the majesty and depth of space, and thank jesus christ for this ultimate gift and blessing. but suddenly, my outstretched arm collides with the outer rim of the docking port, and the trajectory of my quaggy body is violently halted.

>the ftes afford me barely enough time to turn his head before the turds arrive. one thousand turds, each one seemingly larger than the last. i try in vain to cleanse mu eyes of the shitsting, but succeed only in smearing my own fecal matter into a fine asspaste, which slowly seeps into my eyes and nasal cavity. i inhale three hundred and twenty four Space Turds; my lungsare permeated completely with my own shit. i hang lax, spirit broken, defeated by poop. i will never be the same. i am forever a shit faggot

>>	Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 06:04:57 2010 No.1831259 >>1831065 Are you saying the study if math isn't science?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 06:07:57 2010 No.1831270 >>1831259 Yes you retard.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 06:08:57 2010 No.1831274

>>1831259
Actually its not.

You should have linked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry

>>	Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 06:11:57 2010 No.1831281 >>1831270 I aswell as others disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_as_science

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 06:21:57 2010 No.1831298

>>1831281
You're quoting wiki. Wiki is wrong. Math is not science.

Science is the art or practice of learning by making falsifiable predictions on the natural world. In other words, the art or practice of learning through evidence. In other words, the art or practice of learning by inductive reasoning.

Math makes no falsifiable predictions, nor is there "math evidence", nor does it have inductive reasoning (Math inductive reasoning isn't formal logic inductive reasoning, misnomer), so it is not science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 06:32:57 2010 No.1831312 >>1831274 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics You forgot this one

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 06:35:57 2010 No.1831326 >>1831312 We all respect maths, but it is fundamentally not science. See >>1831298 , and go to bed.

Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 06:41:57 2010 No.1831340

>>1831298
Of course math doesn't make predictions, but neither does chemistry, nor physics. People make predictions; matheticians, physicists, chemists etc.

<Science exclusively deals Natural World
define natural world, and prove what is and what is not natural.

And math makes predictions all time.
also since you are so into falsifiable predictions, how about you provide some evidense.

Now you just gonna get mad?
Typical teenager, your lack of understanding painful.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 06:48:57 2010 No.1831356

>>1831340
>define natural world
>math makes predictions
I have better things to do with my time. If you want to get into some sort of existential discussion, go to /phil/ or something. This is the science board.

Also
>people make predictions, not chemistry, physics, etc.
Seriously. Metonymy is a perfectly well understood linguistic device. Fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 06:50:57 2010 No.1831359 >>1831340 And math makes predictions all time. Name one.

>>	Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 06:53:57 2010 No.1831367 >>1831356 A scientist who likes to be ambiguous? Now I've seen everything. Why don't you go write some poetry.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 06:53:57 2010 No.1831368

>>1831340
>define natural world
You are a troll. However, I have a bad habit of feeding trolls.

This is well beyond the bounds of this board, and there is no way I can give a reasonable answer in a single thread. As a rough approximation, the natural world is anything we can see, hear, touch, smell, or taste.

The natural world includes the planets, atoms, and falling apples. The natural world does not include "the number 1", though many things can be modeled with "the number 1".

Also: preemptive reply: while we cannot sense an atom directly with our five senses, we can sense our lab equipment directly. As such, the atom is a useful and falsifiable model which makes useful and falsifiable predictions on what we can expect to sense in the future.

Chemistry makes the prediction that if I combine potassium and water, it'll react. Physics makes the prediction that if I drop a hammer, it will fall. Math makes no such prediction on anything which our five senses can sense.

Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 07:05:57 2010 No.1831374

>>1831368
Are you saying ideas aren't real? and anything virtual isn't real either!?

Anything the body experiences (ideas, senses), are a byproduct of interation with your "natural" world. And as a byproduct of a physical phenomanon, it is real via association.

You're just being subjective.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:05:57 2010 No.1831375 >>1831340 and prove what is and what is not natural. To quote Plato: Mathematics is a world that transcends space and time. I think that's pretty cool; why you mad bro?

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:05:57 2010 No.1831377

>>1831367
I don't think I was ambiguous. I was telling you to fuck off because
1- you are trolling or an idiot
and 2- the definition of "natural world", depending on the exact connotation, is off topic.

To explain: the existence of god is a scientific question. "There is no god" is a scientific statement. It is a statement of the natural world. It is falsifiable. God could strike me down now, but it does not happen.

In the context of trying to define science, the natural world was quite encompassing. It basically includes anything where you can use inductive reasoning on evidence to produce falsifiable models and falsifiable predictions. And again, math is none of that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:07:57 2010 No.1831379 >>1831374 The land of Hyrule is a real place because it runs on a N64 which is part of the natural world. Makes perfect sense.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:07:57 2010 No.1831380

>>1831374
>Are you saying ideas aren't real? and anything virtual isn't real either!?
No. I'm not attempting to define real, nor am I attempting a rigorous definition of "natural world". I am merely attempting to define science, and demonstrate that math is not science.

For each real scientific theory, I can devise and experiment which has a possible outcome which falsifies the scientific theory. For math, this is impossible, so it is not science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:09:57 2010 No.1831382 >>1831374 anything virtual isn't real either!? >>virtual isn't real Yah bro, that's the definition of the word.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:16:57 2010 No.1831386

Let me try it like this.

Science is the art and practice of proving by example. Literally. For any particular statement, if it has no known counter examples, then the more examples you have, then the more respected your scientific theory is.

Attempting such a proof in a peer reviewed math journal would make you the laughingstock of the math world.

Proof by example is called (formal logic) inductive reasoning. (Not to be confused with mathematical inductive reasoning.)

Science has that as its single axiom: the rules of the world today are the same as they were in the past and the same as they were in the future. Science is the art and practice of discovering those rules through evidence, through proof by example.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:18:57 2010 No.1831387 File: 1 KB, 237x156, imaginary.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1831374 If math is real, why does it contain imaginary numbers?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:19:57 2010 No.1831388 >>1831387 math-isn't-science guy here. That has so many misnomers in it, it's entirely devoid of value that it's also trolling.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:20:57 2010 No.1831389

>>1830586
This. Basically op, you're not a scientist. You see something you can't explain, and assume that there's some fantastic and bizarre explanation for it.

A scientific person sees something they can't explain and understands that it's not within our current understanding. Most of what I assume you mean when referring to the "supernatural" have been debunked extensively.

Remember that humans have made up all sorts of stories which are, today, ridiculous. All this in order to explain things that they did not understand, but we now do. Why we have seasons, why the stars move, why we have days and nights, why the sky is blue, why fire is hot, why storms produce lightning?
You can't really believe any of these are supernatural?

But at one point, many humans did. They created fables and gods, whose whims were responsible for seeming chaos and random events which we now understand. Make no mistake, the amount we do not understand is vast - but we don't believe that the hand of deities is the cause of our ignorance, but rather, our ignorance is the cause of our lack of understanding.

Tl;Dr: You're wrong OP

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:22:57 2010 No.1831391

>>1831389
To sum this up in my favorite way:

In other times, and in less scientific places in the world today, if someone couldn't answer how or why something happened, the answer was "A wizard did it!". While possibly true, it lacks value to say a wizard did it. You learn nothing useful by attributing it to a wizard. You can make no new falsifiable predictions, and thus you have gained no real understanding.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:24:57 2010 No.1831393

>>1831388
I think he's making a valid point. No length, width, volume, speed, or any other value we give to phenomenon in the real world can ever have such a value. Its something that can never exist in reality. It can be used to solve real world problems, but it must always cancel out in the end.

For that matter there's nothing 2/3 meters long either.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:25:57 2010 No.1831395

>>1831393
No, he was going for a pun on imaginary. Math has imaginary number, so if math was real, then imaginary stuff would be real. However, we're using several different meanings of the words "real" and "imaginary", so it amounts to funny puns at best, and trolling at worst.

You make a reasonable point though.

Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 07:27:57 2010 No.1831396

>>1831380
Because it is impossible for you does not mean it is impossible.

>>1831377
the ambiguous bit was refering to your metonym

>>1831387
It also contains real numbers. Thanks for drawing a parallel between Real numbers being "natural," and the imaginary numbers being virtual.

>>1831377
<implying god isn't to busy masturabting to give a fuck about you.

>>1831375
What does it transend from?

>>1831386
Hey the rules of math are the same too. WOW. Math must be science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:29:57 2010 No.1831397 >>1831396 >Hey the rules of math are the same too. WOW. Math must be science. Please give me an example of valid proof by example in math. (No, proof by exhaustive example does not work.) (Nor does proof by counter example.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:30:57 2010 No.1831399 >>1831396 We're still waiting for you to give us a falsifiable maths prediction.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:31:57 2010 No.1831400

>>1831396
><implying god isn't to busy masturabting to give a fuck about you.
I wasn't implying anything like that. I was merely giving an extreme example about how god is a member of the natural world using the definition of natural world I earlier gave. He's a member of the natural world because his non-existence is falsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:31:57 2010 No.1831401 >>1831396 >the ambiguous bit was refering to your metonym Only if you're a pedantic asshat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:33:57 2010 No.1831402 >>1831396 >Because [a falsifiable math prediction] is impossible for you does not mean it is impossible. Still waiting for that. However, preferably you should give a math proof by formal logic inductive reasoning, aka a math proof by example.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:33:57 2010 No.1831403 >>1831396 What does it transend from? >>transend from? You neither know the meaning or spelling of the word transcend.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:40:57 2010 No.1831407

>>1831380 Because it is impossible for you does not mean it is impossible.

It is impossible by the very definition of the concepts of maths and falsifiability. If you get tired of trying to find a falsifiable maths prediction you can always try finding a unicycle with four wheels or a metre that is longer than 100 centimetres.

>>	Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 07:46:57 2010 No.1831414 >>1831397 >>1831399 The burden of proof is on you. >>1831403 2/10

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:52:57 2010 No.1831423

OP, if you were in any way familiar with the scientific community you'd know that almost every research project depends on external funding. What funding agency is going to provide financial support for a research investigation into 'paranormal' phenomena? Answer is not many, if any.

Also sometimes paranormal occurrences are scientifically questioned and solved, such as Australia's creepy min-min lights. However the realm of supernatural experiences is more inclined to be put in the domain of psychology and psychiatric assessment of those who claim to bear witness.

So tell me OP, what particular pyramid theory are you talking about? Is it deserving of credibility on a scientific basis? How would people go about solving these so-called mysteries, and why is it important?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:52:57 2010 No.1831424 >>1830548 Are you retarded? There are so many people that are trying to sign up for that shit, with the majority of them being declined and those that do get through are abused and subjected to ridiculous shit.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:52:57 2010 No.1831425

>>1831414
No sir. This is not a question of burden of proof. The demands for a falsifiable math prediction or math proof by example were rhetorical in nature because they are impossible. We need no proof because it's not a scientific debate. It's a debate over definition which does not involve inductive reasoning nor evidence in any way. According to the definitions, math is not a science.

Moreover, math is exactly that. Math is all definition and deductive proof. There is no inductive proofs aka proofs by example in math. In math, there is no burden of evidence. There is only axiom, definition, and deductive proof.

Science, on the other hand, is proof by example, proof by evidence. Scientific theories are thus necessarily not 100% reliable and they are falsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:52:57 2010 No.1831427 >>1831414 The burden of proof is on you. So when someone makes a silly claim it is up to everyone else to disprove it otherwise it is true. I'm not sure if... No that's the exact opposite of how the burden of proof works.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:53:57 2010 No.1831428 >>1831424 sources?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:56:57 2010 No.1831434 >>1831424 [citation needed]

>>	Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 07:57:57 2010 No.1831435 >>1831427 Yep, that's the law of the land. Until you do there is always a probability that I am right. >>1831425 Unless the definitions explicitly excluded math from being a science, it is not outside the scope of what can be science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:58:57 2010 No.1831437 >>1831435 What color is the sky in your world?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 07:59:57 2010 No.1831440 >>1831281 >>1831340 >>1831312 MAN YOU GUYS ARE DUMB, I CAN PROVE THAT MATHS ISN'T SCIENCE REALLY EASILY. JUST LOOK AND THE NAME OF THIS BOARD "/sci/ - Science & Math" -AND- MATH, MEANING THAT MATH ISN'T A PART OF SCIENCE. MAN I BET YOU FEEL DUMB NOW.

>>	Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY Fri Oct 1 08:03:57 2010 No.1831445 >>1831437 open, like my mind. (ya that's right open is a color. deal with it)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:10:57 2010 No.1831459 >>1831435 Unless the definitions explicitly excluded pokemon from being a science, it is not outside the scope of what can be science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:17:57 2010 No.1831471 >>1830660 No, you're a douchebag. Why should you waste tolerance on useless skinsacks committed on denying reality at every turn? These are the people that make it impossible to avoid the global doom-spiral.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:31:57 2010 No.1831495

You are realizing that if God showed up on earth tomorrow for one day and brought dead people back to life with angels flying throughout the sky in every country in the world, that the next day somebody would try to explain it off as the earth passing through a field of natural wormholes and distorting segments of time-space causing a worldwide hallucination induced by electromagnetic disturbances. This is essentially what modern science has boiled down to, and why those who subscribe to its works like a religion (i.e. /sci/), turn a skeptical blind eye to blatantly obvious paranormal phenomenon no matter what the circumstances.

I'm confident that if something were to happen on Dec 21, 2012 that people associated with whatever branch of science is most closely associated with the event would try to take credit for predicting it under the veil of the hype it causes, thus undermining the Mayan's in such a way that after a few years one might say "HURR DURR, THEY NEVER SPECIFIED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ONLY SCIENCE DID."

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:37:57 2010 No.1831501 >>1831495 lol u sound mad. Anyway, naturalistic explanations like "powerful aliens did it lol" will always be more likely than "actually the god of the bible actually exists".

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:43:57 2010 No.1831508

A Mathematician walks into a bar, he sees physicist, metereologist and software developer.
He decides to join them for a drink and goes: "Howdy my fellow friends, Had a productive day predicting stuff"
and the others go: "What you mean, you are mathematician"
and the mathematician continues: "Well I know the exact moment of sunrise/set in specific location"
and the physicist quickly responds: "But that's not your job, thats my job"
"Well I made calculations that it is gonna rain today" said the mathematician
"Its not your job to predict that": said the metereologist
then mathemacian said with a louder voice: "Hey but at least my code keeps the world running"
and very swiftly software developer said "That would be my code"
now the mathematician starts sobbing and the others ask "What is it now?"
"I am no good for anyone, you all do the same job but better"
"No, we owe you a thank, you gave us the way, we gave you the meaning"
and so mathematician was happy again knowning he might not know what to do with his numbers, but his dear friends would put them in good use for better humanity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:46:57 2010 No.1831513 >>1831508 This is the greatest post in the history of /sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:53:57 2010 No.1831526 A lot of scientists do make a serious study of "paranormal" phenomenon. That keep very low on the radar. If they were to attract the weirdos, there funding would disappear.

Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:55:57 2010 No.1831530

What was the name of that one street with a weird name somewhere in the Bible belt, where all the children were getting photographic memories and crazy talents, but scientists wouldn't study them because the area was too religious and they were too young or some crap?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 08:56:57 2010 No.1831532 >>1831530 Narnia

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 09:00:57 2010 No.1831535 >>1831532 Nah, that's not it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 09:05:57 2010 No.1831548 >>1830568 He also doesn't know that lines of longitude are completely arbitrary, and could have been place anywhere else in the world. Latitude is a little less arbitrary, but yeah, egypt isn't along the equator, not by a long shot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 1 11:28:57 2010 No.1831841 .

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]