[ 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: 66 KB, 280x280, Calabi-Yau2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103566 No.3103566 [Reply] [Original]

relative intellectual difficulty of sciences:

Pure Math________100
Physics__________45
Applied Math______26
Chemistry________16
Biology___________8

>> No.3103579

lol this looks real official.

>> No.3103581

ohboyherewegoagain.jpg

>> No.3103618

You forgot this one:
Psychology__________0

>> No.3103623

God tier:

Physics

Mid dier:

Chemistry

Low tier:

Biology

Tool to make other sciences easier tier:

Mathematics

>> No.3103625
File: 539 KB, 761x341, storm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3103625

>> No.3103631

>>3103566
Statistics____100000000000000000000
Pure Mathematics___10
Biochemistry_________4000000000000000000000000

>> No.3103635

agreed OP

>> No.3103647

>Difficulty of sciences
>Math
Are you retarded or something

>> No.3103767

I find it quite cute that some physicists think that they intuitively understand all biology based on high-school knowledge and the increased purity of their discipline.

>> No.3103793

>>3103767
no one said that. it just says that biology is conceptually very easy.

even on the molecular level it is just one molecule binds with another which sends signals here, ect ect. I can jump right into graduate level neuroscience textbooks with no problems, but if I try the same thing with physics or math, I won't be able to get past the first page.

>> No.3103815

Pure Math________100
Physics__________90
Applied Math______80
Chemistry________60
Biology___________45
fix'd

>> No.3103829

Pure Math________80
Physics__________15
Applied Math______46
Chemistry________12
Biology___________65

>> No.3103830

A mathematician is to a physicist as a biologist is to a farmer.

One invents, one does the menial work.

>> No.3103831

>>3103767

Biophysic fag here, I teach me everything of Biology in my free time and go to lecture of biologists in my free time. I don't know everything but just because I have not seen it yet in books, not because I can't udnerstand it.

also
>relative intellectual difficulty of sciences:
>Math

this guy is trolling you

>> No.3103840

Biology and chemistry are way harder and math is way easier.

Unless you're a trained ape who can only memorize and regurgitate information, then pure math is probably hard for you.

>> No.3103848

>>3103815
that's ridiculous. even the nobel prize winning physicist CN Yang said was quoted as saying: "There are two types of modern math books, those where you can't get past the first paragraph, and those in which you can't make it past the first sentence."

>> No.3103861

>>3103793
>I can jump right into graduate level neuroscience textbooks with no problems
Yeah but how many people actually intensively study subjects that are outside of their field? Someone who actually majored in neuroscience would know more than you. And I'm sure if a neuroscience major really wanted to he could teach himself some advanced math too. All these "other sciences don't matter because physicists can learn them too" threads are fucking stupid. They assume that physicists have the time to learn the other disciplines. Sure they could but they most likely won't, so these disciplines are still necessary.

>> No.3103871

>>3103861

Very valid point. Hadn't thought of that. I guess whoever is the quickest learner is the optimal scientist. So much to learn, so little time to learn it.

>> No.3103872

I found the applied math courses I took to be far more difficult than my pure math courses. I find understanding concepts easier than modelling.

>> No.3103876

Believe it or not some people are naturally good at math

>> No.3103899

>>3103861
>"other sciences don't matter because physicists can learn them too"

that wasn't my point at all. cell biology and neuroscience are extremely interesting and fun, due in large part to the fact that they are conceptually easy. I can just open up to a random chapter and start reading, and it all makes perfect sense and I learn a great deal, while with pure math, I would have to spend weeks learning and doing problems just to get an idea of what it is about.

>> No.3103905

Why do we always have these stupid discussions?
No science is dominant over the other or needs more intellect.
Trying to find solutions for some sort of disease like Alzheimer's disease is clearly not evident, just like it's not evident to find the proof for problems in the Ramsey theory

>> No.3103917

I refuse to believe anyone is simplistic and insecure enough to ignore relative difficulty,

>> No.3103933

>>3103793
I guess it is quite reasonable to make a complex/complicated differentiation between the two.

While biological systems are immensely complex, underlying principles are reasonably simply to grapple with.

Physics and maths on the other hand have highly complicated and often counter-intuitive first principles, yet getting past that things become quite simple.

I could have a guess that this is where the contention arises. Whereas a biologist will likely not attempt the complicated initial mathematics in physics, a physicist may come to terms with some founding principles of biology and wrongly assume that's all there is to it.

Could be wrong, thoughts?

>> No.3103946

biology is so easy because it's a relative new field of science, it's a great playground to try things out and create very very simple modells to explain it. like in the old days with physics and chemistry.
later on, if ever, biology will be nothing more as informatics running some simulation based on mathematical modells. so enjoy your happy fun days biologist

>> No.3103949

>>3103905
>Trying to find solutions for some sort of disease like Alzheimer's disease is clearly not evident

The difference is that with biology, diseases are usually cured not by someone sitting down and thinking very deeply, they are cured by advances in technology, which suddenly provide the keys to unlocking the problem. Penicillin was discovered by accident. Modern pharmaceutical companies can try to figure out the molecular basis of a disease and design molecules to treat it, but that is not an issue of needing to think really deep, its just an issue of getting computing power to run through billions of molecules, and buying machines which can do millions of cell cultures.

>> No.3103956

>>3103949
> its just an issue of getting computing power to run through billions of molecules
thats what the majority of science is these days

>> No.3103970

>>3103949
In other words what biologists do is hardcore science.

>> No.3103971

>>3103905
lol, we leant how Alzheimer's disease is caused way back in highschool. You biofags still not sorted that one out?

>> No.3103983

>>3103971
lol we know what causes AIDS too. You still haven't figured that one out?

>> No.3103995

>>3103971
>>3103983
Biofags need to pull their fucking finger out. People are dying out there

>> No.3104005

>>3103995

I know right? Jeeze, at least physicists and chemists get shit done... (admittedly with the help of engineers)

>> No.3104025

>>3103970
I guess you could say that because in biology everything is experimentally driven. Darwin aside, thinking and theories are pretty useless in biology, what matters is doing experiments. If you try doing thought experiments to figure out the brain, you end up with the bullshit that Freud came up with, whereas, in physics thought experiments can be used, as that is what lead Einstein to relativity.

so biology is based on simple mechanisms interacting in complex ways, which makes thought experiments useless, while physics is based on complex mechanisms interacting in simple ways.

>> No.3104037

>>3103946
>>3104025
This.

>> No.3104056

>>3103566
Don't be so elitist Maths isn't that hard.

Sticking with your model as Maths 100

Mathematics 100
Theoretical Physics 105
Physics 90
Chemistry 80
Biology 65

Things that claim to be science but aren't

eg. Social science 5.

>> No.3104181

Cell signaling pathways and protein engineering are not nearly as easy to deal with as most other fields of science, mostly due to the fact that Mother Nature is fucking retarded; having closely studied many pathways it's very safe to say that most of our biological signaling is an excellent argument -against- intelligent design. And that's just going off what we know about them; those little cartoon diagrams in your undergrad books often are barely scratching the surface of what's actually going on, skipping many steps, cross-interactions, environmental conditions, cofactors etc, and are in fact partially incorrect much of the time in their gross over-simplification.

So, undergrad bio is easy for you to understand because it's dumbed down .. and it's dumbed down because a.) it's an INCREDIBLY diverse field, you only get more specific in grad school and b.) they just don't have the time in a 4-year curriculum to blow a whole quarter/semester to give undergrads a class about say, the thermodynamics/kinematics of protein folding, or the specific workings of epigenetic gene silencing pathways. So, those uninitiated in bio, take a look at shit on Wikipedia or in textbooks and think it's not so bad.

Knowing the terms and processes etc is easy, but, actually integrating everything in your head at once is far more difficult; hence if you're not a biologist and read articles out of Cell or Nat Med, chances are very very high you won't get wtf is going on besides the Reader's Digest abstract.

>> No.3104219

100 Theoretical Physics
95 Pure Math
90 Computer Science
80 Physics
65 Applied Math
45 Chemistry
40 Biology

>> No.3104250

>>3104181

Another thing, molecular bio is far more difficult than meets the eye. There is discovery by empirical brick-walling e.g testing countless variants of chemicals until they find something that works; that's what industry does a lot of, but, there are also directly-designed treatments on the protein level, that take a lot of thinking to create, specifically you can have a simple idea in your head or on paper, but, you have to carefully analyze the solvent-accessible surfaces and changes in electrostatic potential fields whenever you tweak a protein, as a single residue substitution can easily fuck up an entire protein. Instead of being able to ideally react things in stable, controlled environments, you have to design shit that already is just about ready to fall apart naturally to be able to withstand the constantly changing environment of an organism, an environment that may actually specifically react to reject your protein or fuck it up in other ways not predicted (since, out of ALL proteins and pathways out there, our collective knowledge is basically a little candle in a very big cave).

Also with protein design, pretty much nothing behaves exactly as predicted by your precise models; nothing in nature goes exactly the way *we* would do it or want it to go. Vectors won't express some proteins, some proteins interact in ways that defy explanation, some proteins have countless variance in them that makes them impossible to model. You can spend thousands of hours trying to predict the folding structure of a protein and, once crystallographers finally can map it (a super expensive, time consuming and sometimes apparently impossible process), oops, actually you're fucking wrong despite all your calculations, you can either be off-angle of a few domains by a couple angstroms, or actually wind up with something that doesn't fucking look anything like what you predicted. Mother Nature is a 10/10 troll.

>> No.3104300

>ITT: implying Biology is anything other than rote memorization

Also,
>>3104219
>implying CS is really a science or difficult for that matter

inb4 shitstorm

>> No.3104321

>>3104300
CS is as much of a science as pure math is. :/

>> No.3104350

you forgot engineering, it's over 9000 so i guess you don't want to dwarf your self important physics "degree"

>> No.3104353

>>3104300

If biology was THAT easy, then we'd have cured all our diseases already and probably have solved the energy crisis with some kind of heavily-engineered organisms. As you can guess, it's not that easy.

That's why thousands of minds and hundreds of billions of dollars have not been able to cure cancer or AIDS etc. You think this shit is so easy, faggots? Ok, let's see you work with systems that will flat-out shoot down your approaches; ones you spent years and millions of dollars painstakingly planning. You don't get to just combine things in perfectly controlled environments, you have to deal with an environment that has billions of years of evolutionary tools integrated within it that WILL fight back.

For example a few years ago Gleevec came about as an anti-cancer drug; it's a RAF inhibitor.. for those not in the know (e.g I'm assuming all of you fucktards) that was something that for decades, was thought to be the holy grail of cancer research, THE silver bullet. It's not. People treated with Gleevec tend to have the cancer come back anyway. It's still used for leukemia and several other cancers, but it's not nearly as effective as was thought. Even though Gleevec is a brilliantly drug that works by binding to the inactive form of the RAF, out of a large mass of cells with something as unstable as cancer, almost invariably, there will be mutants that have mutated that RAF to simply not have an inactive form, or to (even worse) have an extra flap of residues over the active site that is apparently enough to still let the enzyme function but is now far too small for Gleevec to bind. That's just one example of why medicine is not that easy, and why cancer is apparently impossible to cure from a rational scientific standpoint - make one thing that works, one thing that in ANY other science would be the one-stop solution, and the cancer will just find one of the infinite biological loopholes by sheer probability.

>> No.3104378

>>3104353
biology dude, if you keep writing huge ass paragraphs no one is going to want to read your posts

>> No.3104405

>>3104300

Rote memorization is HARD. Math is easy, just nice logical ideas that follow from other nice logical ideas, everything part of one big picture. Having to memorize the properties of bullshit organic molecules is not.

>> No.3104407

>>3104353
Someone sounds mad.

>> No.3104408

>mfw genetic engineering is god-tier engineering

>> No.3104420

>>3104405
Troll

>> No.3104422

>>3104405
It's not hard, it's just tedious. It doesn't require any talent to memorize something, but you do need to be talented to do abstract math well.

>> No.3104424

Disciplines ranked by how much abstract reasoning and problem solving is required:

Math
...
...
Philosophy
Physics
Computer Science
Applied Mathematics
Analytical Chemistry
Biological Chemistry
....
Biology
Sociology
Political Science

>> No.3104427

engineering dwarfs all those on a chart

>> No.3104432

>>3104405
>Rote memorization is HARD

lolno. memorization is easy as shit. you just have to have a system. like online flashcards. I can easily memorize 30 completely random things in like 15 minutes.

for classes that I don't care about its really easy, I just memorize the vocabulary before the test, and ace it, because multiple choice tests are always the type of question that either you know or don't know, not the stuff you can figure out, so if you know the vocabulary, then you can see that only one term was relevent and the others are made up.

>> No.3104446
File: 88 KB, 300x370, 7920489.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3104446

>> No.3104471

>>3104446
ive never heard a physicist complain about biology being too hard.

but I heard premeds talking about how hard general physics is, and that you need to take general physics with only easy classes because its so hard you will spend all your time on it.

so your pic might be accurate.

>> No.3104492

>>3104422

I think "tedious" means difficult more than "requiring talent" does. If something requires talent, then it isn't hard, it's quite easy, you just have to be one of the lucky talented ones to do it. If something requires tedium, then it is misery no matter how who you are. Things that require talent are subjectively hard, things that require tedium are objectively hard.

I'm not some biology major trying to justify his bullshit. I majored in Math. I majored in Math BECAUSE I'm too lazy to figure out how to do mnemonics and shit, so I just laid back and took it easy with Mathematics. Some would say I'm just naturally talented, and yeah I guess, but I'm still fucking lazy.

>> No.3104506

>>3104492

To really do biology is to do research, which involves actually solving problems. The stuff they teach you in high school and first year of uni is like learning the alphabet.

>> No.3104514

>>3104492
The difference is that you can get by in biology by using either talent or rote memorization.

In mathematics, you MUST have talent.

>> No.3104521

>>3104353

This. Exactly this. Math majors will never understand - so even though I totally agree with you I think you're better off just chalking this argument to "haters gon hate" and move on.

>>3104471

>not realizing that the majority of first and second year pre-med students who take physics are just pretenders. ask the ones that ACTUALLY end up in med school.
protip: they're the non-physics majors that also get the A's in the course. thanks for serving as a weed-out class though, physics.

>> No.3104525

>>3104514

The only reason biology has so much memorization is that there an enormous knowledge base that must first be mastered in order to do anything novel. I'd like to see a mathematician or a physicist elucidate the role of a protein, and then manipulate a strain of bacteria/yeast to produce this en masse.

>> No.3104531

Biofag here, actually required to take more chemistry than biology, nearly twice as much actually.

But I guess it evens out since I only need about 1/4 the math of chem. majors.

>> No.3104545

>>3104521
>they're the non-physics majors that also get the A's in the course.

Yeah, they get A's because they take it during a specially planned semester when they only have easy classes, so they can spend all their time memorizing how to solve problems, and they use a tutor, and argue with the professor to get a few extra points.

>> No.3104547
File: 64 KB, 800x558, 1303097567629.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3104547

>>3104471
>your average premed

Premeds =/= other biologists. They aren't in it for research (which is what science is all about obviously) and hence don't approach biology from a scientific aspect. Premeds often are people who are actually too stupid to be taking biology to begin with, and they're just in the route because they want money, or they want to be like House or some shit.

Also for kicks I once took a physiology course (full of premeds) and shit was way, way easier than my other upper divs. It was quite literally all memorization, at least other bio courses I've had involved formulas, rules, needing to know experimental procedures and test results etc. So, because premeds tend to be, how should I put this, sheltered from the scientific aspects of biology, they can flip their shit if they get plopped into physics, which is full of formulas and applications of observations.

>> No.3104611

>>3104545

Obviously you have no idea what kind of course load pre-med students have. Considering the amount of pre-reqs pre-med students need to apply after their first three years, having a "specially-planned" semester is impossible. Are there pre-med students that aren't as smart? That struggle with the course? That take until they're 25 to apply and take physics at a CC? Sure. But don't generalize.

>>3104547

Sounds like an easy physiology course. I've taken courses where you get into things like respiratory function, circulatory systems, etc. and it takes a deeper level of analysis and problem solving to diagnose diseases/abnormal functioning. Like math and physics, biology courses can have difficult problem solving if you take the right course with the right professor.

>> No.3104649
File: 39 KB, 447x335, oh_you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3104649

>>3104611
>pre med
>American undergrad
>claims his course is hard

>> No.3104671

bio and chem fag here. i agree bio and chem are shit easy and just need good memory.

however i would put physics down to 25 and pure math to maybe 50
and applied math 20

lets face it 75% of physics is also just remembering formulas and being able to re-arrange them.

>> No.3104673

>>3104611

You do realize you can go to med school as a music history major right?

>> No.3104679

>>3104671
ya but like algebra is really hard you have to have talent to do math...

>> No.3104696

>>3104649

lol. I was simply implying that it went beyond basic memorization. Was it hard for me? No. But it still required more analysis than the "hurr, a cell is the basic functional unit of life" that you do see in intro bio courses.

>> No.3104710

>>3104673

True, although you still do need the pre-reqs for most schools. Like I tried to imply, there are other cases. I just forgot to mention the non-traditional candidates. The majority of applicants major in the sciences though.

>> No.3104720

Microbiology makes me sad

>> No.3104722
File: 9 KB, 259x194, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3104722

>>3104671
>lets face it 75% of physics is also just remembering formulas and being able to re-arrange them.

>> No.3104731

>>3104025

>glorious.jpg

>> No.3104737

>>3104722
100% of reality is being able to remember symbols and shunting them in coherent order.

>> No.3104738

>>3104056
As far as the social "sciences" go:
Linguistics_____100
Economics____90
Sociology(Quantitative)___80
Sociology(Middle Range)__10
Political Science___70
Psychology__0.33333333333333333

>> No.3104739
File: 65 KB, 468x347, 1281992413409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3104739

>>3104611
>Implying pre-med is hard

Both pre-med and pre-dental as easy as shit

>> No.3104742

First we have to give a coherent definition of science, you are demarcating science as only what is listed after all, however a coherent picture of this has yet to be established.

I myself would define science as inquiry directed at truth, which extends to all fields. I also would not limit it to a naturalistic perspective as naturalism cannot be proved, thereby it is wrong to reject any other basis of reality by which inferences are made provided they are consistent.

>> No.3104746

>>3104737
That's 100% of semiotics.
Reality is a little more complex.

>> No.3104754

>>3104742
Please stop redefining science. Science is the art and method of learning by making models aka theories that give falsifiable predictions which are supported by evidence.

>> No.3104761

>>3104754
Cool so basically science is not-true by definition, good to know. Something being falsifiable is in essence requiring it to not be true after all. Something that is true cannot be falsified by definition of what it means to be true.

>> No.3104763

>>3104742
>I myself would define science as inquiry directed at truth, which extends to all fields. I also would not limit it to a naturalistic perspective as naturalism cannot be proved, thereby it is wrong to reject any other basis of reality by which inferences are made provided they are consistent.
I think you just defined philosophy, of which science is a small subset.

>> No.3104764

>>3104739

>Not reading my response

I guess I shouldn't have said "difficult" then. Like I said, I was just arguing classes CAN go beyond basic memorization.

>> No.3104765

>>3104738
thats the worst ranking ive ever seen.

>> No.3104773

So why do you guys care if your field of study is intellectually demanding? It's not really; it only requires the application of oneself and patience.

>> No.3104781

>>3104761
That is correct. You cannot justify the axioms of science using science.

>> No.3104787

>He cares about subject rankings within Science

>> No.3104788

ITT: people who make excuses thinking their majors are hard at an undergraduate level without realizing after that hump they are all equally and insanely difficult.

>> No.3104802

>>3104763
Well hard sciences were originally philosophy after all.

The problem is that between hard/soft sciences there isn't really anything left anyways which is not covered by the term science. The exception would be religion, specifically theology, not dogma. When asked why this is the answer is basically because of a presupposition to naturalism, when asked for a defense of naturalism none can be made. So to try and exclude theology while at the same time boasting science is nothing more then a non-surface level battle between naturalism and other views of reality. The principles sciences uses for inquiry are the same as those used in theology. A theological theory or view of the world has to be consistent logically in the same manner all theories are.

>> No.3104807

>>3104802
>The principles sciences uses for inquiry are the same as those used in theology. A theological theory or view of the world has to be consistent logically in the same manner all theories are.
No. Science requires more than logical consistency. It requires supporting evidence and falsifiable predictions.

>> No.3104822

relative intellectual difficulty of sciences:

My field__________________100
Fields I like________________45
Fields I don't care about______26
Fields I don't like____________16
Fields I am biased against_____8

>> No.3104850

>>3104807
Yes, evidence/facts are what a theory seeks to interpret. If it cannot account for all of these it is wrong. In the same way, theology works at the level of epistemology trying to account for all of reality (evidences like logic, reason, morality) with a theory or presupposition by which everything else can be viewed.

Naturalism cannot make sense of moral facts for instance, yet we operate our lives with a sense of objective morality by attributing things as good or bad actions. Science itself requires the moral of honesty in order to operate. From a perspective that cannot justify honesty things start to break down and can no longer be called science. As experiments become more and more expensive science is becoming politicized for instance, and those with an objective who think the ends justify the means can/will make a mockery of science to further their goals.

>> No.3104869

relative intellectual difficulty of sciences:

Pure Math________100
Physics__________45
Applied Math______26
Chemistry________16
Biology___________8

Relative real world usefulness of sciences:

Biology__________100
Chemistry________95
Applied Math______26
Physics__________12
Pure Math________6

interesting. veeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting

>> No.3104875

>>3104807
Science doesn't require more logical consistency than theology. The difference isn't in logic but in empiricism.

>> No.3104879

>>3104850
>Yes, evidence/facts are what a theory seeks to interpret.
Maybe that's what some people say as a shorthand, but no. Scientific theories make falsifiable predictions. We've abandoned scientific "realism" as a hard requirement for a while now, ever since quantum theory.

>If it cannot account for all of these it is wrong.
What? No. A theory can be correct and incomplete.

>In the same way, theology works at the level of epistemology trying to account for all of reality (evidences like logic, reason, morality) with a theory or presupposition by which everything else can be viewed.
No. Not in the same way. Science works off of evidence and makes falsifiable predictions. Theology does not use evidence, and it does not make falsifiable predictions.

>Naturalism cannot make sense of moral facts for instance,
I don't know what this means. Methodological naturalism can make falsifiable predictions.

>yet we operate our lives with a sense of objective morality by attributing things as good or bad actions.
I don't work off a sense of objective morality. Lots of other people do not as well.

>Science itself requires the moral of honesty in order to operate.
The act of collaberative science, with journals, and such, yes. What's your point?

>From a perspective that cannot justify honesty things start to break down and can no longer be called science.
I don't know what you mean. You can practice science in a human vacuum. You don't require other people to do science.

Moreover, you seem have a misundering of how the scientific enterprise actually works. Incoming copypasta in next post for reply.

>As experiments become more and more expensive science is becoming politicized for instance, and those with an objective who think the ends justify the means can/will make a mockery of science to further their goals.
Yes, and?

>> No.3104880

>>3104869
sorry, but theres this thing called technology that im not sure you are aware exists.......

>> No.3104884

>>3104875
Read it again.
>No. Science requires more **than** logical consistency. It requires supporting evidence and falsifiable predictions
Not:
>No. Science requires more logical consistency. It requires supporting evidence and falsifiable predictions

>> No.3104887

>>3104850
>>3104879
>From a perspective that cannot justify honesty things start to break down and can no longer be called science.

Incorrect. There is a vast distinction between faith in science and faith in the god hypothesis. Allow me to explain.

You see, for the god hypothesis, lots of people would have to be wrong. However, for all of those people to be wrong, there are no particular falsifiable claims which would be affected. That is, the world we live in would not be different with or without a god. (I'm being generous here. I think it would be measurably different.)

However, if modern scientific knowledge was a hoax, that is incompatible with the world as you know it. So many people would have to be in on this, that it would be a vast conspiracy on the scale of The Truman Show. What is more plausible - that everyone who is involved in technology and research is part of the same vast conspiracy? Or that it's true?

That's the difference. We have evidence that modern scientific knowledge is (largely) true. Eye witness testimony, the fact that your computer works, that your car works, that you can replicate the basic experiments to verify the Newtonian laws of motion, and so on.

And yes, there is a difference between the eye witness testimony of scientists, manufacturers, and so on, vs religious people. Religious people make falsifiable claims which have been falsified. Scientists, manufacturers, and so on, generally do not.

>> No.3104894

>>3104869
This is true actually. I was looking at the patent revenues of a major university and 9 of the top 10 patent revenue generators were biology. The other one was electrical engineering.

>> No.3104898 [DELETED] 

GOD TIER:
Engineering

MEH TIER:
Math,Physics

STUPID WOMEN TIER:
Biology,Chemistry

>> No.3104902

ITT: People that don't know what applied math actually is.

>> No.3104906

Sucking a chicks nipple in the dark. She was loving it. All of a sudden there is liquid...

So keep going, she seems to be loving it.

Lights come on, dun dun dunnn, I had been sucking the pus out of a boyle.

>> No.3104911

MY SCIENCE IS BETTER THAN YOUR SCIENCE HURR DURR


same shit different board

>> No.3104926

>>3104884
If naturalism is not true then an inference based on facts/evidences may not only not be true, but may not even be directed at truth. Without a defense of naturalism science is wrong to assume naturalism as its basis of interpretation. This is my point and I will not deviate from it.

Unless you directly address the point then you are saying things like intelligent design theory are not science BECAUSE you specifically defined science to exclude it. No one will be happy with such a vague unsupported reason why it is not science, and you no longer can have any sort of claim to a logical high ground on the issue.

>> No.3104936

Hi, I study Chemical Engineering, it's awesome!

I just with It was easier so i could spend more time idling.

>> No.3104967 [DELETED] 

>>3104887
?However, if modern scientific knowledge was a hoax, that is incompatible with the world as you know it. So many people would have to be in on this, that it would be a vast conspiracy on the scale of The Truman Show. What is more plausible - that everyone who is involved in technology and research is part of the same vast conspiracy? Or that it's true?
I don't know if you are aware but there are other views of reality in which "science" defined in naturalistic terms and all its derivatives still make sense. No one is denying such achievements, but as long as a view of reality can interpret science and thereby its achievements then it IS making sense of all the same evidences/facts that naturalism is, as well as whatever else it encompasses.

An example is God for the reason why science seems to work, etc.

>> No.3104975

>>3104056
Science or not, for example psychology requires much more intelligence than for example biology

>> No.3104978

>>3104887
>However, if modern scientific knowledge was a hoax, that is incompatible with the world as you know it. So many people would have to be in on this, that it would be a vast conspiracy on the scale of The Truman Show. What is more plausible - that everyone who is involved in technology and research is part of the same vast conspiracy? Or that it's true?
I don't know if you are aware but there are other views of reality in which "science" defined in naturalistic terms and all its derivatives still make sense. No one is denying such achievements, but as long as a view of reality can interpret science and thereby its achievements then it IS making sense of all the same evidences/facts that naturalism is, as well as whatever else it encompasses.

An example is God for the reason why science seems to work, etc.

>> No.3104989

>>3104898
except when that biology degree brings me to med school which leads to me later having a career that i earn half a million and you are barely earning 100k.

>> No.3105000

>>3103566
ITT: Ants arguing about their position in the Hive.

>> No.3105010

Philosophy
>in applied form is
Math
>in applied form is
Applied math
>in applied form is
Computer science
>in applied form is
Physics
>in applied form is
Chemistry
>in applied form is
Biology
>in applied form is
Physiology
>in applied form is
Kinesiology
>in applied form is
Psychology
>in applied form is
Sociology
>in applied form is
Anthropology
>in applied form is
Culture and Gender Studies
>in applied form is
Women's Studies
>in applied form is
High school education

>> No.3105036

Anyone know a good IQ test site? By good I mean no cost, no email, no name, or birthday needed. Just thought this might be a nice time to ask.

>> No.3105044

>>3104926
>If naturalism is not true then an inference based on facts/evidences may not only not be true, but may not even be directed at truth.
Correct.

>Without a defense of naturalism science is wrong to assume naturalism as its basis of interpretation. This is my point and I will not deviate from it.
I fail to see an alternative. In fact, I claim there is no alternative but to make assumptions, aka axioms.

>Unless you directly address the point then you are saying things like intelligent design theory are not science BECAUSE you specifically defined science to exclude it. No one will be happy with such a vague unsupported reason why it is not science, and you no longer can have any sort of claim to a logical high ground on the issue.
It's not vague. Also, this has nothing to do with factual truth. This is definitional. Science's definition incorporates inductive reasoning based on evidence and falsifiable predictions. That is the meaning of the English word science. That is its definition. If you don't like it, tough.

>> No.3105045
File: 32 KB, 740x308, purity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3105045

>>3105010

>> No.3105057

maths and physics are easy, because they can be interpreted well.

you have fixed rules and understandings, doesnt really take much effort intellectual wise

>> No.3105060

>>3105045
False. All of those things are evidence based except for one. All of them are science except for one. Can you guess which one?

>> No.3105065

>>3105036
>>3105036
You can use your SAT/GRE/ACT scores as a proxy for IQ. Google it, I've seen tables with the relationships in a variety of places. I've taken the SAT, GRE, and ACT and my scores line up very well, matching an IQ of about 140.

>> No.3105074

>>3104978
Not sure if you're trying to refute any points which I've made or not. You should more clearly demark them when you are.

Also
>An example is God for the reason why science seems to work, etc.
That's nice.

>> No.3105084

>>3105057
I'd like to see anybody outside of a degree in mathematical sciences solve a proof properly.

>> No.3105099

>>3105060
There is such a thing as evidence in mathematical research. For concepts that haven't been proven, a set of specific cases is considered to be evidence of the general case. When a person is doing mathematical research, they're generally working on a specific case of a more difficult problem. The question of P vs NP is a good example of this. It's widely believed that P != NP just because of the large number of problems in NP to which no one has found a solution that runs in P.

>> No.3105119

>>3105010
>Computer science
>>in applied form is
>Physics
what

>> No.3105165

>>3105044
Wouldn't it be nice to have a view of reality in which things like induction, logic, honesty, etc. actually make sense? You know, the things sciences needs to operate at all. Your position seems to be that we can only have axioms as if there is no foundation, infinitism. Infinitism is indefensible though as there would be know way of determining this. At the same time it postulates an endless regression of reasons, which by definition can be applied to these axoms, something I highly doubt you can do.

All I'm saying is science is an approach to inquiry that is "scientific" in nature. If two people have different views of reality and both inquire into a particular area like life science it is possible that the inferences they make that define their theories are different despite having the same facts while both are logically consistent(at this level), and supported by evidence.

It is like saying physics is only science if you are a naturalist, however if you are a christian that studies physics and postulate that physics operates the way it does because of God, then all the physics you know is not science since the underlining position is not naturalism, even if the two views happen to be indistinguishable in this particular area.

Basically you are wrong, because your position cannot be defended. "My defense is that I define it this way". So science before Darwin in which everyone was a theist was not science? At what point did science become synonymous with naturalism. This clearly has nothing to do with the origins of science and was later adopted specifically to deny certain views of the world the ability to use such a term. Naturalism is indefensible however.

>> No.3105168

>>3105119
I admit that was kind of a stretch, but it makes sense if you're talking about electricity, circuits, and magnetism.

>> No.3105174

>>3105165
And there you've reached the essential conflict between the normative and the positive.
Normatives think in terms of differences between something and something else, while positivists think in absolute terms.

>> No.3105195

>>3105165
Not sure what this infinitism nonsense is. I have no infinite regress of explanations. I have roots in my explanation graph, and I agree these roots are indefensible. Do you have an alternative?

Also, I have no clue how Darwin was brought into this. Kind of a non-sequitar.

>> No.3105234

>>3105195
I do have a different view of reality called presuppositionalism, however I don't feel like getting into it right now. My point about Darwin was that before Darwin naturalism certainly was not the standard, yet science still existed. Before evolution naturalists had no explanation of origins such that no one doing science would be a naturalist, yet at the same time science was being done. You claim science is defined by naturalism, yet this clearly was not the case in the past, so then why can we now say this is the case, since the position of most scientists then is no longer valid. Clearly what made science then and now "science" was not naturalism.

>> No.3105281

>>3105234
Science is a word. Words change meaning over time. That's how language works.

Also, "presuppositionalism"? I don't know anything about it, but it sounds like axiomatic to me.

>> No.3105303

GTFO Pure math//Physics = eassssssy. Learn formula. Use formula in knew ways. Substitute formula into other formula. Find variables and make formula = simple. Neuroscience.... not so simple.

>> No.3105321

2 kinds of "science":
1. learn and apply to new things (physics, engineering, etc.)
2. memorize specifics (chemistry, biology, etc.)

>> No.3105336

>>3105321
>>3105321
You have no fundamental understanding of science or chemistry for that matter. There is a periodic table that lends trends and order so that you can anticipate how related elements will react.

This is probably why you hate chemistry.

>> No.3105340

>>3105303
>Implying Pure Math is all about manipulating formulas and solving for variables.

For a Neuroscience major, you don't have much brains do you.