[ 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: 32 KB, 740x308, purity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1870079 No.1870079 [Reply] [Original]

Sup guys! i need some help. I'm looking for a book that can help me a lot about learning. Im not interested in books like "How to tweak your mind" or "Get a perfect memory in 12 steps". But im more interested in real psychological books. The other day my cell-biology professor started talking about books like that, but he didn't say a title. He was speaking about psychological experiments and that there are books that really work, well not like you read it and suddenly you can photo read ( witch i actually don't think is possible) but it teaches you how to learn a bit more effectively.

>> No.1870080

OP's pic lacks philosophy.

>> No.1870091

>>1870080
Philosophy is not a science.

Besides, psychology and sociology uses it more than the rest of the fields of science depicted.

>> No.1870122

>>1870091
Neither is Math. Anyway, the picture doesn't just has "Fields", it doesn't say anything about science per se.

>> No.1870131

>>1870122
Mathematics is a science, it's the language and tools of science.

>> No.1870134

>>1870122

>>Implying humans created math and that it isn't something that was discovered

>> No.1870136

>>1870131
It's the language but it's not a science in itself. Math is only descriptive, we use it to describe how stuff works. It's not explanatory because there's no experimentation involved in pure math.

>> No.1870138

>>1870134
Math is way of looking at and conceiving the universe. It was invented, not discovered.

Saying math was discovered is like saying Language was discovered.

>> No.1870139

>>1870134
How the hell am I implying that?

>> No.1870142

>>1870136
Actually no, the formation, trial-and-errors, and challenged validity of mathematics are the experiments in carries out to verify and prove itself so.

>> No.1870144

>>1870079
I wish he would define purity. Oh wait, he can't because he's talking out of his ass.

>> No.1870147

>>1870139
You said it was not valid as means of science and not one itself as well, as proven and backed up with your statements:

>Neither is Math.
>it doesn't say anything about science

>> No.1870148

>>1870142
Experiments aren't just trial and error... You don't apply the scientific method to math because it's only logic. We're debating over a definition here... There's nothing to discuss because you're wrong. Math is not a science.

>> No.1870150

>>1870147
I only said math is not a science. I never denied that it's a useful tool <span class="math">for[/spoiler] science.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. Have a good day.

>> No.1870151

>>1870148
Ironic when you claim the other is wrong while claiming "Math is not a science." That's just pseudo-philosophy and adherent falsification. And experiments are trial-and-errors done repetitively cohesively to crank out an average, a solid piece of data to be used for future experiments as pertained and given by the scientific method, which is what mathematics do with itself.

>> No.1870154

>>1870151
Mathfag here, actually math is not a science. Mathematicians don't collect data and apply statistics. We can prove a theorem with logic.

>> No.1870156

>>1870150
>I never denied that it's a useful tool for science.
No one claimed that you said it wasn't a tool, just challenging your claims that it wasn't useful mean or validity, and it wasn't one. But as long as you're admitting defeat and propagating you were wrong this whole time.

>> No.1870159

>>1870148
>>1870150
>>1870151
You two are arguing over semantics. Give it up or find an English major. That's *their* specialty.

>> No.1870164

>>1870154
Yes they do, it's how they find equations and data mathematicians and scientists use today. Also, you're a not a mathfag in any form if you actually believe that.

>> No.1870168

>>1870164
You are confusing physics with mathematics you retard.

>> No.1870172

>>1870164
This board is called Science AND Math for fuck's sake.

>> No.1870174

>>1870168
No I'm not, physics just uses mathematics and passed down equations and theorems to push itself. Mathematics experiments and repurposes itself to find data and said-equations and theorems for it and other scientists to use.

>> No.1870175

>>1870172
That's because there are agnostic philosophy retards that they are completely different things.

>> No.1870176

Wouldn't mathematics be more of a soft science...?

>> No.1870179

>>1870175
You're sentences don't even make sense now...

>> No.1870180

>>1870179
Neither is using "you're" in place of "your."

>> No.1870184

>>1870180
Thouché. Still, that wasn't even half as bad as that clusterfuck of a sentence you spewed out.

>> No.1870188

>>1870184
Shame, it's more accurate, correct, and dome than yours.

>> No.1870189

>>1870184
>Thouché.
It's "touché," American -.-

>> No.1870190

>>1870188
Except it's not at all. Even if it was grammatically correct it still wouldn't make sense. What the fuck does agnosticism even have to do with the discussion? I have the feeling I'm debating with a 16 year old.

>> No.1870191

>>1870189
I'm German.

>> No.1870193

>>1870191
Bouffeur de choucroute.

>> No.1870198

>>1870190
It's not an absolute argument, but they're almost always the trolls and party that attempts to shot down and subjugate science and various mathematics to make it seem less reliable and more questionable to use and bother. There's hardly as many theists trolling this board, most of them are agnostics trying to tackle atheists or who they associate with atheism, mostly just pretentious philosophy major trying to instill and enforce their values and notions on others. If it's anyone on this board shooting down and denying science and mathematic's reliability, it's the agnostics, almost guaranteed like Vincent the Warewolf Before Carmana.

>> No.1870201

>>1870191
Modern Germans aren't very bright either. Almost as bad as Americans, almost.

>> No.1870212

>>1870198
Right. That little rant had absolutely no relevance to the specific debate we were having. I'm a fucking mathematician in training you idiot. I'm not trolling anyone. I'm not attacking the reliability of science nor mathematics. All I'm saying is that math is not science because it's not empirical and that's a simple fact.
>>1870201
Nice ad hominem you arrogant asshole. See what I did there?

>> No.1870221

>All I'm saying is that math is not science because it's not empirical and that's a simple fact.

0/10

>> No.1870225

>>1870221
It's best to resort to troll ratings if you're losing the debate. Do you even know what empirical means?

>> No.1870235

>>1870212
>I'm a fucking mathematician in training you idiot. I'm not trolling anyone.
1). Then you are not really a mathematician, just an intern lackey.
2). You're already failing at it.
3). You have to be completely retarded to post what you have been saying this whole thread. Such retardation is astoundingly and inexcusably difficult and insufficient that trolling is the only real possibility behind such idiocy and fallacies. It's just utterly astounding and back-breakingly illogical how one can spew out such bollocks if they weren't mentally impaired. GTFO kraut.
4). You are trolling and you know nothing about mathematics.

>All I'm saying is that math is not science because it's not empirical
It is empirical. It's data and validity are that of years of it's experience, the mathematician's experience, and the continuous experience and usage that keeps asserting and proving itself fruitfully to be a wrought and reliable field. And that is a simple fact.

>> No.1870236

>>1870225

you don't know what physics means

>> No.1870240

>>1870212
>All I'm saying is that math is not science because it's not empirical
>I'm a fucking mathematician in training
It's funny almost everyone who are starting out in a field of mathematics and science, but so far assume they understand enough of it, resort to believing that it's not as useful or believable as one would think at first; until that view of theirs 180s itself later into their career/time in said field.

>> No.1870245

>>1870235
Just keep responding if you think I'm a troll, faggot. Also keep avoinding the debate by using ad hominems. U mad?

>If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is not a science. Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." <span class="math">^1[/spoiler]

I rest my case.

1: Einstein, p. 28. The quote is Einstein's answer to the question: "how can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" He, too, is concerned with The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.

>> No.1870251
File: 49 KB, 294x294, 1276095149177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1870251

>mfw when the discussion has nothing to do with OP's question

>> No.1870252

>>1870240
>believing that it's not as useful or believable as one would think at first
I never said or implied that you retard.

>> No.1870259

>>1870245
And your usage of ad hominems, and ad infinitums, and arguments of silence make you no better, perhaps worse, than your opponent. And Einstein has been wrong before, he believed our current theories/law of gravity are wrong. And his later works soon turned into the now-untestable hypothesis of string theory. Outside of relativity, he was hardly a reliable and truthful and considerable source and choice of information, and even his theories of relativity stink of thievery and plagiarism. He was quite a buckwash idiot at times, and a kike.

>> No.1870268

Also:
-separate departments for science and mathematics in virtually all universities.
-separate prizes for accomplishments in the fields (Nobel prize vs Fields medal)

>> No.1870274

>>1870259
And nothing of value was said that day. My argument stands.

Anyway, also see: >>1870268

>> No.1870279

>>1870252
And no one said you idiot, in fact nothing in this thread even remotely suggests that (you have to have a paranoid mental process to even conceive such). All is saying is that it's not unusual for people, when they get far enough into a few to use it as a career, yet still very early to even comprehend fully, to assume that their field is more subjective and less absolutist than one thinks at first; which such beliefs end up being turned around and almost nullified once they are much more experienced (as in years and perhaps decades) in it. To simply put: it is not unsurprising that you know and are less experienced in your field than you currently assume, and that your POV and disconcerts of that field would naturally stem from this. After all, you are still in training, thus you are no more a reliable and valid choice in mathematics as the rest of the people in this thread.

>> No.1870284

>>1870274
Almost all universities have separate departments and sections for each field of science and mathematics as well. Almost each field has different rewards and recognition achievements for them exclusively.

>> No.1870287

>>1870279
Again, keep attacking me instead of my arguments. It's cute when you rage like that.

>> No.1870292

>>1870284
Except the Nobel prizes are grouped according to science. There's no Nobel prize for mathematics. And in universities the departments are called department of science and mathematics, with different sub-departments for different sciences.

>> No.1870311 [DELETED] 

Oh look it's this retarded discussion again.

It's science <span class="math">{\bf and}<span class="math"> math you faggots. Learn2/sci/[/spoiler][/spoiler]

>> No.1870314

Oh look it's this retarded discussion again.

It's science <span class="math">{\bf and}[/spoiler] math you faggots. Learn2/sci/

>> No.1870315

>>1870287
This was not an attack on you or anyone, that your assumption of such does highlight my example that you might have a "paranoid mental process" fruitfully in a very ponderous and probable matter. The statement was basically to remind a fact and happening that people in training of such fields of mathematics and science, or who are early into their career and field, would assume they know more than really do in their field, assume they are more experienced than they are, and naturally assume they are more reliable and valid a source of information than they truly are. There is no rage but simple statements, speculation, empiricism, and self-experience on one part. In fact, the claim "you don't know as much as you think you know" was merely speculation based on empiricism and self-historicism, and only to be taken as an example of others sharing the same characteristics. Though the back-talk and snapped reply to such examples does suggest and hint at the notion you know little in comparison to what you assume you know, convincingly I might add. As well as the constant propagation and assumptions all arguments made against yours are simple ad hominems or mere backwater strikes. In conclusion, previous argument was mere speculation and noticing an example based on those similar to you, but your response and reactions to them really highlighted and supported those speculations and claims that I'm starting to wonder, even more, that they are true or not. They certainly assert it as a possibility, a niche one perhaps, but still.

>> No.1870319

>>1870292
The Nobel Prize rewards only certain fields of science, but not all of them. It thinks economics is a field of science for example.

>> No.1870320

>>1870319
Name a field of science that doesn't get a Nobel prize.

>> No.1870328

>>1870320
Particle physics.

>> No.1870331

>>1870315
Calling someone paranoid isn't an attack on that person? I'm going to ignore this and politely ask you to return to the discussion at hand. You've yet to reply to these I believe;
>>1870245
>>1870268

>> No.1870333

>>1870328
That's a sub-field. Physics has a Noble prize.

>> No.1870348

>>1870320
Oh nothing major, just the field that has been the single most important and transformative scientific discipline over the past 50 years, computing.

>> No.1870350

>>1870079

MECHANICAL MEMORY

cant remember the author, its really good. i remember all the stuff, i cant forget it, i havent used it in a while as i havent needed to but i tried remembering a phone number at the time (ive only ever remembered like 4 in my whole life) and it worked instantly, i dont even have that phone anymore yet i can remember the number instantly.
its about using the near infinite aspects of your mind, picture, music and story recall, and applying it to things that are much harder like number recall and sterile information.
im a guitarist and i played my old phone number on my guitar using the corresponding numbers in the scale.
0 7 8 5 5 .....and sang the note as i said the number, boom, took me 20 seconds to totally hardwire it into my brain. most people use the story and pictures method as it isnt so skill specific. you know how you can remember your whole day, or your enitre night at a party? how is it you can recall 100's of pieces of information of a party, people, places, names, objects, with absolutely no effort, yet if someone tells you 10 numbers youll forget it as they say it? just how your brain works, you can handle pictures for ever, and you can use that area of your mind to handle other stuff but you have to trick it. thats what the book is all about, hacking your own brain.

>> No.1870352

>>1870331
I was never even apart of this discussion, just tuned in. And no one claimed you were paranoid, but claimed to always always assume a counterargument is a personal attack on you would be evident of a paranoid mind, and that your constantly assertions and assumptions that each counterargument in this thread is an attack on you doesn't prove paranoia, but still hint that you are a paranoid about it in this thread, as well as your assumption that others in this thread pointing it out vividly, and that it's an attack on you (as "Calling someone paranoid isn't an attack on that person?" Highlights and details).

>> No.1870354

>>1870333
"Fields" was asked, not "sub-fields," so either way can go.

>> No.1870357

>>1870348
That's because of the relative novelty of the field. Mathematics is older than science.

>> No.1870364

>>1870352
Right. Kindly respond to the posts linked to earlier.

>> No.1870370

>>1870354
Nobel prizes aren't awarded to sub-fields specifically but for outstanding research in a broad field. Particle physics may get a Nobel prize after there is conclusive evidence for the Higgs-bozon, they just haven't yet. No matter how big the discovery in mathematics, any field of mathematics, no Nobel prize for it.

>> No.1870373

>>1870364
I don't need to, I was not even apart of them or this discussion until recently, those were some other individuals. There's no need to drag it out despite your wish to, but no need other to serve for someone else's fruitful validation.

>> No.1870376 [DELETED] 

>>1870373
That was me you idiot. The discussion was about whether mathematics was a science. I hold that it's not.
>>1870245
>>1870268
These are good arguments.

>> No.1870381

>>1870373
>I was not even apart of them or this discussion until recently
Than why do you keep responding to my posts? What the fuck are you even doing in this thread? Either join in on the discussion about mathematics (I hold that it's not a science) or I'm ignoring you.

>> No.1870391

>>1870381
I was reading the later posts, had points and arguments to make that could be useful, continuing viewing to see any feedback and response, like most people. Though your entrained speculation suggest a false particularity and need to group up unisons and push off convertibility.

>> No.1870392

JESUS CHRIST YOU DERAIL A THREAD IN LIKE 2 POSTS /sci/ WHAT THE FUCK

>> No.1870395

>>1870357
Computing has been powering to the forefront of human innovation since shortly after WWII. It has transformed every facet of our existence, it is a tool used by nearly every human on Earth either directly or indirectly (used to make the services that they take advantage of operate), and has totally changed how humans interact with each other socially.

Despite providing more radically impactful since the 1950's than every other field of science combined, it does not get recognition from the Nobel comittee.

I don't really give a shit because the Nobel prize is a bunch of crotchety old men circle jerking each other for their contributions to the world (or not, RE: Obama getting the peace prize before he had a chance to do anything worthy of it), which usually aren't all that meaningful. Every now and then something gets awarded that is actually deserving of it (like DNA), but even then they usually manage to fuck it up by only being able to award it to 2 people maximum, giving it to the wrong people entirely, or not awarding it posthumously.

But as a field, Computing gets no fucking respect from the world. It's the foundation of our motherfucking society, but saying "I have a Ph.D. in computer science" is the fastest way for somebody to not give a shit about you since "I play Dungeons and Dragons".

>> No.1870397

math is separate from science, science models the physical world math is not and never has never will be science, its not a swipe at mathematicians they know as well as anyone that its different to science. as in math if something is proved it is true forever but in physics there is always a measurement you didn't take or didn't take it to high enough precision

>> No.1870404
File: 15 KB, 500x343, tumblr_kxu7k7WTRW1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1870404

why don't you just ask your professor OP? the only things i can think of: tony buzan and edward de bono.

inb4 shitstorm. oh wait...

>> No.1870405

>>1870395
Wow I didn't see that train of butthurt coming.

Sure computing is a science, and it's useful and should be acknowledged as such, but the simple fact is that it's a relatively new field and hasn't received attention from the Nobel committee. My point by asking for fields of science that don't get a Nobel prize was in pointing out that all large accepted sciences get Nobel prizes. I'd make computing an exception to this, not because it's not a science, but because 50/60 years is not that old for a science to exist. Mathematics on the other hand has been around for ages, longer than science, and doesn't get a Nobel prize. That's because it's not a science in itself.

>> No.1870431

>>1870080
Why did you even post that?

>> No.1870459

Victory is mine.

>> No.1870542

I wouldn't call Computer Science a science. It's more a mix of math and engineering. There is no science-ing going on there. You are not discovering stuff, you are creating stuff.

>> No.1870586

>>1870542
>computer science
How can you deny that it's a science? IT HAS THE FUCKING TERM IN IT'S NAME

>> No.1870602
File: 37 KB, 870x308, 18902356011.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1870602

>>1870080

>> No.1870626

>>1870586
Oh come on. Just because they call it managerial science or environmental science doesn't mean it's a science. If you are an actual science you won't have the word science describing you.

Anyway, I am not putting down cs or anything. It just doesn't science, that's all.

>> No.1870645

>>1870626
>If you are an actual science you won't have the word science describing you.
Right, like biomedical science and neuroscience?

>> No.1870671

>>1870645
Fine. My point being that computer science is not a science.

>> No.1870679

>>1870671
Let's meet in the middle and call it applied science?

>> No.1870685

>>1870679
That's not in the middle, that's even farther out. The reason computer science isn't a science is because it's a branch of math.

>> No.1870704

>>1870685

Everything's a branch of math... that's the point of OP's post.