>tfw people in the Physical Sciences have no respect for those in the Social Sciences Why you hatin'?

File: 71 KB, 1280x720, 1312936588733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:04:03 2011 No.3690353 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw people in the Physical Sciences have no respect for those in the Social Sciences

Why you hatin'?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:06:03 2011 No.3690360 Not hating. Just stating the facts: social sciences aren't really science. More like hobbies for people that aren't good at math. Can you diagnose why my left eye twitches when I burp loud?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:07:03 2011 No.3690364 >>3690360 A biologist could. Therefore, Biology is a hard science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:07:03 2011 No.3690367 File: 33 KB, 366x400, tamed-and-weaned-parrots-for-sale-4ddb8bb75d0be7c22339.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3690353 I was told to hate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:08:03 2011 No.3690368 >>3690367 Good one /sci/entist. XD lol'd

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:13:02 2011 No.3690386
File: 37 KB, 195x288, blankslate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

I'll tell you why, OP.

I'm required to take Sociology 101 at my uni (yes, murrikan policy). I took issue with the way the professor automatically assumed everything was behavioral and and not innate. Rape was assumed to be a "learned trait" and not merely an instinct. Intelligence is entirely environmental (herp). It's like a fucking religion. Nothing about human nature can be genetic for these "scientists" because it would offend their sensibilities.

Pic related -- If every social scientist were like Steven Pinker, by which I mean they embrace reality rather than hide behind false constructs like the "Standard Social Science Model," then I would hold social science in higher esteem.

Just Saiyan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:13:03 2011 No.3690385 >>3690353 Because they are a more diluted and opinionated version of a pure science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:16:46 2011 No.3690396 >mfw some kid told me that sociology was a difficult subject

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:19:03 2011 No.3690409

>>3690360
It's not that they aren't science it's that they are problematic science because they are science's way to study the way we live, the way we learn effectively the way we do science. it's studying itself. that's where the problems occur. I would be all for referring to not as science but as proto science for now on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:20:03 2011 No.3690419 File: 37 KB, 1110x308, excd-economist.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3690409 >Economics The worst of the worst when it comes to social science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:22:03 2011 No.3690435 >>3690386 >intelligence is entirely environmental But he is right? If you can find a single difference in someone's brain that makes them smarter than someone else, you should have the nobel prize

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:23:03 2011 No.3690440

>>3690396
it can be depending on how in-depth it is.

The real answer to your question OP is that most "hard" scientists who despise the social sciences are actually very butthurt over the fact that "hard" sciences require objectively less intelligence to understand and practice. The "hard" sciences are open to anyone who can perform a few basic arithmetic and calculus equations, which is not beyond the comprehension of anyone with a pulse (something that math nerds deny but is completely true). Social sciences require gifts of intuition and philosophical reasoning which are not present amongst the vast majority of those practicing the "hard" sciences, who are only capable of understanding the world in narrow mathematical terms. So they deny the importance of the social sciences as a way of masking this insecurity and relentlessly pedestal very unintelligent subjects like mathematics or chemistry as requiring great intellectual skill, which is laughable.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:25:02 2011 No.3690449

>>3690435
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n6/abs/5201588a.html

duende.uoregon.edu/~hsu/talks/ggenomics.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

This is well established now. A few weeks ago there was even a GWAS study (explained in second link) solidifying the relationship between genes and intelligence, confirming decades of twin studies.

Intelligence is heritable by about 75%.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:25:03 2011 No.3690447 File: 37 KB, 475x291, gay-research.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3690440 In other words, being a snake oil salesman is ten times harder than understanding quantum entanglement.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:25:03 2011 No.3690450

Becaus sociology is a fucking cancer. Producing hippy retards and people who take up space in our fine universities to learn a worthless craft and provide an unneeded service. Then they bitch about their student loan debt while making 20k a year. I hate you sociology faggot women.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:28:03 2011 No.3690457 >>3690440 8/10 Very close to raging.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:29:03 2011 No.3690465 >>3690435 Obvious troll is so obvious

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:29:03 2011 No.3690466 File: 23 KB, 152x225, mzi.usxlgpnu.225x225-75.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Social scientists are just social engineers. Not smart enough to be scientists. Not hardworking enough to be inventors. Not talented enought to be artists.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:29:03 2011 No.3690468

>>3690360
>More like hobbies for people that aren't good at math.
Actually, it's pretty much the other way around. It takes very little skill to be good at math, most people just aren't interested because it's irrelevant to their daily lives. That and most higher-level mathematics (like topology and real analysis) is a complete and utter waste of time.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:30:02 2011 No.3690472
File: 52 KB, 500x500, 1315170278418.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3690468
>It takes very little skill to be good at math

>[math is] irrelevant to their daily lives

>That and most higher-level mathematics (like topology and real analysis) is a complete and utter waste of time.

0/10 piss poor troll

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:32:03 2011 No.3690478 >>3690440 hahaha, I chuckled. 10/10

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:38:03 2011 No.3690513

>>3690450
I think this post displays the fine mentality of a social-science denier most excellently. He foams at the mouth with resentment against those who are interested in understanding the human condition, rather than wasting their lives on sequencing worm genomes or memorizing lists of organic compounds. He knows that what he does could be done by anyone with a calculator and an IQ above 70, but he really can't seem to admit it. Ouch.
>>3690472
If it's not true, then perhaps you would care to prove it?

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:40:03 2011 No.3690518

>>3690468

Math shouldn't take skill. Math should be simple and easy for anyone who is interested. Therein lies the problem, people are not interested in mathematics.

It is laughable that you think that mathematics is not useful, even the abstract and highly analytic mathematics. It has been shown that pure mathematical research leads to new applications. Knot theory for instance. Once swept under the rug as pure worthless mathematical development and has been recently revived for its application to string theory. Pure mathematical research will describe the universe at some point, applications will be found. Our growing complex society will find its usefulness in one way or another.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:48:03 2011 No.3690532

>>3690513

You are completely nuts. No one wants to go into the social sciences, NO ONE. They only major in it because they suck at science and math too hard to even be engineers, fuck. They're only there because it's the only thing they can take in college, regardless, they are going to work at starbucks in the end.

Even fucking engineers can shit on social science majors because they are the shit of the shit, the bottom of the shit barrel.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 14:51:02 2011 No.3690545 >>3690532 Engineers are above science majors. What are you talking about?

>>	Z !!dsx+Y0H3Zjm Mon Sep 5 14:52:03 2011 No.3690550 >>3690353 social sciences? like neuroscience?

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:15:03 2011 No.3690648

the other name for social science is the "harder science"; obviously a pun and the hard-soft distinction. What most physical scientists don't realize is how difficult, slippery, and confounded social science practice really is. There are no controlled experiments, and data required for some sort of simple study may not be obtainable, either in practice or ethically.

A further problem is the scourge of anti-science within the social sciences; I correlate this with the rash of personal interest from the social sciences in the civil rights and similar social movements. Civil rights and similar movements are positive, and all, but when social sciences become personally involved in them the entire attitude of social sciences as a whole shifted from being scientists to being activists.

With the shift from science to activism, social sciences no longer valued math and scientific methods, and further had no well grounded way to rank and value personal research talent. Social science is no less scientifically or mathematically interesting than any other, but those interested in these methods were not rewarded for their talent by the social sciences as they were by the physical sciences. In contradistinction, those who had no talent were definitely not rewarded by the physical sciences, with a well grounded ranking system, but might be rewarded by the social sciences. Thus, for decades the most talented young scientists joined the physical sciences, while the less talented had a good reason to join the social sciences.

Hopefully this will all change. Indeed, social science is of great contemporary interest in many practical and applied activities: for example state building and introduction of new technologies and technological idioms. I have hope the social sciences will change their attitudes, and will begin to attract more talented young scientists.

This was all written by a social scientist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:17:03 2011 No.3690655 >>3690648 obviously a shitty social scientist

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:20:03 2011 No.3690666 >>3690655 obviously a butthurt social scientist

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:24:03 2011 No.3690686

>>3690648
see
>>3690447

Just cause it's more difficult, doesn't make it a hard science.

Infact, many people can take the easy way out and just lie to others, with large words.

In a hard science, that shit would be obvious in peer review.

Sorry man, but when they say 'hard' they don't mean difficult.

They mean the axioms are 'hard'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:31:03 2011 No.3690728 >>3690532 lolno, i choose Sociology over any other degree I could wanted in my non-american free public university. You are just butthurt that can't understand the basics of my knowledge while I can swim thru yours.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:33:03 2011 No.3690737 >>3690728 >white people are bad >men are bad >corporations are bad >america is bad >all women non-whites and poor people are suffering and oppressed thats about the basics of sociology, no?

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:34:03 2011 No.3690741

>>3690686

This board, itself as an example, is all that's needed to contradict anything you say. None of you fags will ever be rich. None of you will ever contribute anything to society, regardless of your major, so you're really no different from anyone else

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:35:03 2011 No.3690748 >>3690737 No, you are clearly retarded. It's funny cause you would rage if i did that list over physics.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:42:03 2011 No.3690772

>>3690748

okay lets do that list for physics

>EMR (light can travel as waves or light)
>newtonian mechanics only applies to macroscopic scales
>quantum mechanics apply only at atomic levels
>impossible to know an electrons position and momentum at the same time
>protons and neutrons are made of quarks and are not fundemental, electrons are
>all particles have a correlating anti particle
>elements can decay into other elements (beta, gamma, alpha)

Wow nothing in physics is useless, while everything in social science is! What a fucking discovery, wheres my noble prize?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:43:03 2011 No.3690774 >>3690748 Huh, you know I don't think I'd be terribly offended by a list of retarded social assumptions studied in physics although I'd be interested to see it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:43:03 2011 No.3690777 >>3690772 >waves or particles

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:47:03 2011 No.3690787 >>3690772 Haha, what a retarded biased mind you have, enjoy your 9-5 job for the rest of your life, mediocre.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:49:03 2011 No.3690793 Most of social sciences can be explained with physics. Read Italo Calvino.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:49:03 2011 No.3690800 >>3690787 Wheres your argument? Where is your peer review? Where is your contributions to any understanding of the human condition? If you really want to understand the how humans think wouldn't you be better of studying neuroscience?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 15:57:03 2011 No.3690825 >>3690800 Wheres your argument? Where is your peer review? Where is your contributions to any understanding of the physical reality?

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 16:07:03 2011 No.3690873

humantities student here

social sciences (and alpha sciences in general) at times tend to be reluctant when it comes to the laws of science (hypothesis, verification, empirical data, etc.). Now, I personally have never experienced this (the subject I studied required you to take several courses on methodology, statistics, etc.), but I am always surprised how some complete bullshit manages to slip into some publications.

I don't know whether this is because of some intrinsic characteristic of alpha sciences, but there you are

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:39:03 2011 No.3691654 >>3690800 No, because human behaviour is determined by enviroment, so you won't find unicausal reasons for behaviour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:44:03 2011 No.3691679 >>3691654 >human behaviour is determined by enviroment [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:47:03 2011 No.3691693 >>3691679 Study Sociology.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:49:46 2011 No.3691703 [DELETED]

File: 37 KB, 195x288, blankslate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3691693
>human behavior is determined by environment
>mfw that's a patent lie
>mfw you need to read Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" since you are following the baseless religion of secularists

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:52:46 2011 No.3691723 >>3691703 >mfw when you are still going to that book when it's unknown even in the highest levels of academics >mfw when every respected sociologist in history have written about this and you still don't know it >mfw when you are a retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:57:03 2011 No.3691762 Human behavior is a combination of both biological and sociological factors. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:57:03 2011 No.3691758 Because they aren't science. Call it social studies or socionomics if you want.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:58:46 2011 No.3691767 [DELETED]

>>3691723
>mfw when you are still going to that book when it's unknown even in the highest levels of academics

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=16869680523879204280&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&a
mp;hl=en

According to Google Scholar, The Blank Slate has been cited 1,588 times.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:58:46 2011 No.3691769 >>3691693 >mfw circular reasoning

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:59:03 2011 No.3691771 >>3691762 Enviromental factors can modify biological factors. Biological factors cannot modify enviromental factors. Next.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 18:59:46 2011 No.3691776 >>3691769 >mfw i'm not here to educate your retarded ass faggot

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:04:03 2011 No.3691811

>>3691771
But biologic factors still exist. This is evident in conditions like alcoholism. People would not become alcoholics if they never were exposed to alcohol, and there are social pressures that can lead to alcoholism, but there are also genetic predispositions to alcoholism. Therefore we see in this situation that there is both genetic and social factors to a behavior pattern. It is to simple-minded to just dismiss factors based on their interrelations with other factors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:07:03 2011 No.3691825 >>3691771 >Biological factors cannot modify enviromental factors. Which is why you need Social Sciences to study the environmental factors. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:07:03 2011 No.3691826 >>3691811 But the genetic factor have negligable impact compared to social, it's ridiculous to equal them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:08:03 2011 No.3691829 File: 56 KB, 639x323, 1314156823629.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] And I'm doing psychology bro.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:09:03 2011 No.3691835 >>3691825 wat? are you retarded? Physics also study enviromental factor affecting human condition and your biased mind still call it science. The social/hard sciences dichotomy is false and you should be ashamed of your stupidity, go away.

Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:12:03 2011 No.3691856
File: 74 KB, 638x874, Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3691826
>But the genetic factor have negligable impact compared to social, it's ridiculous to equal them.

lol, no.

http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/PhysiologicalPsychology/zCurrDir42
00/CurrDirGeneticsTraits.pdf
>There is now a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors. This fact has important implications for research and theory building in psychology, as evidence of genetic influence unleashes a cascade of questions regarding the sources of variance in such traits. A brief list of those questions is provided, and representative findings regarding genetic and environmental influences are presented for the domains of personality, intelligence, psychological interests, psychiatric illnesses, and social attitudes. These findings are consistent with those reported for the traits of other species and for many human physical traits, suggesting that they may represent a general biological phenomenon.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:12:03 2011 No.3691861

>>3691835

>wat?
>are you retarded?

How ironic.
I dont even need to ask you that question as it is apparent that you are retarded.

>Physics also study enviromental factor affecting human condition

So what?

>your biased mind still call it science

How exactly am i biased?

>call it science

Call what Science?

>The social/hard sciences dichotomy is false

Assertion without proof.

>and you should be ashamed of your stupidity, go away.

Ad Hominem

You are pathetic.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:13:03 2011 No.3691865

>>3691826
They are not negligible, they are of actual importance. Your argument is like ignoring the gravitational pull of the earth because it isn't as great as the sun's. It is amazing to me how you can spout out such swill and not be utterly ashamed of yourself.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:21:03 2011 No.3691918

>>3691856
Still no, enviromental effects in intelligence (for example) are getting a degree in Physics or Sociology or getting hit by a car in the head. Your view is narrowed.

>>3691861
You don't seem more intelligent by dissecting my post, that's missing the whole point and argue with words, that's why I notice your retardation.
Keep trying faggot.

>>3691865
They are not that important, they can be overcome and doesn't determine shit of personality, genetics merely determine the basics of humans (or any other living thing on Earth), we are far more than genes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:22:03 2011 No.3691923 File: 40 KB, 562x437, laughingscotsman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3691918 >we are far more than genes This is what social scientists actually believe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:24:46 2011 No.3691933 >>3691923 >mfw your face when you realize genes doesn't really matter in conscient intelligent beings as humans. The world is worse because of you.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:25:03 2011 No.3691938

>>3691918

>You don't seem more intelligent by dissecting my post, that's missing the whole point and argue with words

So much idiocy in just one sentence.

>that's missing the whole point

You havent any point.

>argue with words

And what the fuck did you use to write that sentence?

And you also avoided all of my questions which further proves that you cant even understand English and it also proves how extremely idiotic you are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:27:03 2011 No.3691941 >>3691938 I'm not answering to a shitty retarded troll like you, you don't deserve my knowledge, go die in another thread before you stink the place.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:27:03 2011 No.3691944

>>3691918
>till no, enviromental effects in intelligence (for example) are getting a degree in Physics or Sociology or getting hit by a car in the head. Your view is narrowed.

Intelligence has the highest broad-sense heritability of any major cognitive trait out there. See >>3691856's paper. IQ has a heritability of over 0.80 in adult populations within developed nations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:28:03 2011 No.3691950 >>3691944 IQ is not intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:30:03 2011 No.3691959 >>3691941 >Exposed for his extreme idiocy and incompetence to answer even basic questions and resorts to insults in hopes to salvage whats left of his shattered ego How hilariously pathetic.

Mainsteam Science on Intelligence Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:31:03 2011 No.3691967

>>3691950
>IQ is not intelligence.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
>Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -- "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

>Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:32:03 2011 No.3691973

>>3691918
>They are not that important, they can be overcome and doesn't determine shit of personality, genetics merely determine the basics of humans (or any other living thing on Earth), we are far more than genes.

Your narrow-minded view ignores genetic disabilities or sexual differences that lead to variations such as estrogen/testosterone levels that directly affect behavior. Those are merely samples of what is brushed away by your idealistic assumption that society can overcome any genetic variable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:36:03 2011 No.3691990 Hold on a second. Is the social scientist actually arguing against IQ / g factor? That really is the most important thing to ever come out of social science. It's like a physicist rejecting gravity.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:40:46 2011 No.3692009 [DELETED]

File: 46 KB, 446x388, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3691967

>Mfw Iq tests only test you capacity to discover patterns, despite that mere identification of patterns is exactly what Autistic people can do, but they cant further process it and communicate it
>Mfw In Iq test you can have lower score than the autistic individual and still be more intellectual and competent in life than him
>Mfw Iq tests are practically worthless

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:41:03 2011 No.3692013 >>3691967 I was saying that IQ does not represent intelligence, not that intelligence cannot be measured.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:41:03 2011 No.3692016

go on /sci/
>eugenics threads, where scrawny "Aryans" plot genocide
>endless nature vs nurture tussles
>Rapture / some other pointless society planning
>"BIOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE."
>My major is superior to your major.
>"2x+5=11 help!!"
go on /lit/
>mature discussion of literature, philosophical matters, and daily life

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:42:46 2011 No.3692023 File: 15 KB, 274x242, 1310268988665.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3692009 >mfw childhood IQ is a better predictor of future income than the number of years spent in higher education >source: The Bell Curve by Charles Murray

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:45:03 2011 No.3692035 >>3692016 >>eugenics threads, where scrawny "Aryans" plot genocide gotta admit, I lol'd

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:49:46 2011 No.3692049 [DELETED]

File: 4 KB, 269x188, 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3692023

>Mfw your gypsy predictions are shattered when you are subjected to stimuli deprivation
>Mfw behavioralism and cognitive science shit on your palm readings that you cal Iq tests
>Mfw its easier and cheaper to go a real gypsy palm reader and get a more accurate prediction with crystal ball than your tests

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:50:03 2011 No.3692053 File: 37 KB, 670x496, 1296402592739.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Social "Sciences"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:51:03 2011 No.3692057 >>3690478 >>3690457 >they have no response so dismiss it as a troll

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:53:03 2011 No.3692071 >>3692016 Well technically, the biology is not a science is in opposition to eugenics threads, so they're both the same troll at different angles, most likely 90 degrees.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 19:58:09 2011 No.3692090 The social scientists clearly won this argument.

>>	Independent Adjudicator Mon Sep 5 20:01:03 2011 No.3692104 The social scientists clearly won this argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:02:03 2011 No.3692109 >>3692104 >The social scientists were clearly dismissed as trolls in this thread. FTFY

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:06:03 2011 No.3692122 >>3690518 How do I make myself interested in maths?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:07:03 2011 No.3692124 Social scientists fall victim the just world fallacy, while hard science aka neuroscience correctly diagnosis the vast majority of human behavior as genetic social science denies evolution, neuroscience confirms it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:10:03 2011 No.3692135 >>3692122 get a prostitute with a phd in multi-variable calculus

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:23:03 2011 No.3692201

Because Social Scientists and Humanities do not deserve any recognition in any academic institution because they deal with subjective and non-falsifiable trends, making them meaningless pursuits. They also provide nothing for humanity other than sophistry for politicians and misplaced funding for true sciences.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:29:46 2011 No.3692239 [DELETED]

>>3692057
no reply is needed, you need far more intelligence and creativity to advance physics
in physics intuition is completley useless, requiring physicists to think beyond the intuitive
are you really trying to say that formulating a theory of gravity and motion based on the speed of light being constant in all frames doesn't require creativity and intelligence?
are you really saying that just anyone who can 'just do some calculus' (mfw a lot of abstarct algebra is used in modern physics, it just calculus based) could invent a whole new way of thinking about the physical world?
are you really saying that ideas about particle/anti particle pairs put forward by paul dirac don't require any creativity and intelligence?
really?
is that what you're really saying?

you can believe all you want that social sciences require more intelligence or creativity or w/ever than hard sciences but the truth of the matter is that hard sciences are harder because of the creativity you must use

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:29:46 2011 No.3692242 [DELETED]

File: 27 KB, 376x490, 1278049530687.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>talk about sociology on a board full of neckbeards who cannot understand people in general and therefore refuse to leave their basements and rationalize their behavior with "hurr durr dont need sociology and psychology"
>mfw

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:30:03 2011 No.3692253 >>3692122 study and find the beauty of linear algebra and abstract algebra

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:33:03 2011 No.3692267 >>3692242 Many useless jobs are defended by the people who have them.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 20:51:03 2011 No.3692363

>>3692122
sin x = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7! + x^9/9! ...
cos x = 1 - x^2/2! + x^4/4! - x^6/6! +x^8/8! ...
e^x = 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! ...
i^1=i
i^2=-1
i^3=-i
i^4=1
etc

e^ix = 1 + (ix) + (ix)^2/2! + (ix)^3/3!+(ix)^4/4!...
e^ix= 1 + ix -x^2/2! -i^3/3!+x^4/4!...
e^ix=(1 - x^2/2! +x^4/4!...) + (ix -ix^3/3! +ix^5/5! ...)
e^ix=(1 - x^2/2! +x^4/4!...) + i (x -x^3/3! +x^5/5! ...)
e^ix=(cos x) + i (sin x)
e^ix=cox x + i sin x
set x=pi
e^ipi= cos pi + i sin pi
e^ipi=-1 + i(0)
e^ipi=-1
e^ipi + 1 = 0

Just felt like doing that. If you don't see the beauty, fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 22:15:03 2011 No.3692793 >>3692090 >still calling them "social" scientists and not just scientists. >insecurities detected

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 22:58:03 2011 No.3693009 >>3692363 actual math? on my /sci/? lies

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 ]

/sci/ - Science & Math