[ 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: 11 KB, 150x138, H1..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4394751 No.4394751 [Reply] [Original]

What words set off your bullshit detector? I'll start:
>Holistic
>Natural

>> No.4394758

bank___ _________

>> No.4394761

>Science

>> No.4394768

I fucking hate the word natural. It's so damn tautological.

>> No.4394770

>quantum
>social construct

>> No.4394777

Two words, but
>scientifically proven

>> No.4394778

>Allopathic
>What They Don't Want You To Know
>Secret
>REAL
>Quantum, unless immediately followed by math.

>> No.4394781
File: 12 KB, 209x215, 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4394781

>The more you spend the more you save!

>> No.4394782

>equals infinity

>> No.4394785

>energy
it's to the point that I want to say "Q" or "the e-word"

>> No.4394788

random

chaotic

>> No.4394789

reality, meta-anything, and "perception"

>> No.4394790

>just a theory

>> No.4394795

my bullshit detector isnt triggered by specific words
its triggered by meaning

>> No.4394800

>biology

>evolution

>> No.4394803

>>4394800
>evolutionist
>transitional fossils
>macro evolution
>missing link

>> No.4394807

>organic

>> No.4394812

>>4394803

>Darwinism

>> No.4394815

>terrorist

>> No.4394819
File: 21 KB, 478x361, a_terrifying___terrorist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4394819

>>4394815

>> No.4394820

>throat fuck
>gas station

>> No.4394824

>toxins

>> No.4394823

>big bang

seriously

i am a man of science and i do not believe in mere possibilities being fairy tale fact

>> No.4394829
File: 45 KB, 250x250, oh_you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4394829

>>4394823

>> No.4394830

>>4394823

heck , the current theories may or may not even be possible, they cant even confirm the possibility of their theories except for the fact that they cannot yet be disproven with our current knowledge of the universe. religion much?

>> No.4394833

>c'mon, there'll be chicks there

>> No.4394835

>>4394820
first one funny

>> No.4394838

> all you have to do is fuck just one goat and we'll let you in

>> No.4394849

>Biology
>Conspiracy
>Hidden truth

>> No.4394857

>100% reliable
or
>100% legitimate

>> No.4394858

>Healthy
>Natural
>Secret
>Special
>Holy

Most advertising bullshytt.

>> No.4394860

>western democracy

>> No.4394862

>free energy

>> No.4394865

>magic

>> No.4394867

>tesla

>> No.4394870

>edison

>> No.4394878

>so-called

>> No.4395027

>Western Medicine

>> No.4395036

paleontologist

fuck that shit pisses me off

>> No.4395052

>cleansing

>> No.4395057

>black "people"

>> No.4395062

>big pharma

>> No.4395066

>Homeschooled

>> No.4395068

>>4394777
me too
also "transcendental" and "hegel" ..fuck hegel

>> No.4395073

>"no spin"
>"you'd have to be insane"
>"as a christian"
>"leftist"
>"rightist"
>"the bible"
>"clip" in reference to a magazine

>> No.4395078

>fair and balanced

>> No.4395083

>hermeneutics
>deconstruction

>> No.4395138

>dark matter
>Fischer-Tropsch-like mechanism

>> No.4395189

"Premium"
need I go on?

>> No.4395204

>>4395066
academic

>> No.4395251

Alternative.

>> No.4395261

>essentially

>> No.4395271

It follows that ...
Clearly ...

>> No.4395275

>download manager
>anything misspelled
>download links, anyhwere

>> No.4395277

>>4395036

What.... Paleolithic Studies was a fucking awesome class. It's too bad really that there's no motivation for me to teach because I loved my human history and military history classes.

>> No.4395279
File: 13 KB, 237x200, clint.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4395279

When I hear "Philosophy", I reach for my gun.

>> No.4395283

technically everything is "natural". True, space shuttles don't grow from the ground like grass or trees, but neither do beaver dams or bee hives and we still consider those part of "nature".

The human race and everything we make is part of the natural order. If we destroy the planet, it's just nature taking its course. If we spread across the universe and destroy everything, it's just the way a few odd single-celled organisms ended up.

Everything within the perimeters of existence is natural.

>> No.4395292

>>4395279

>Implying philosophy isn't the basis for all science.

>> No.4395296
File: 29 KB, 125x125, batdick.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4395296

Also, "Reductionist", "Evolutionist", "Warmist" and "Lamestream media". By that point it's all hands to the life rafts, every man for himself, this ship is headed for the bottom, all is lost I repeat all is lost.

>> No.4395300

>>4395292

In the same sense that astrology eventually became astronomy. It doesn't mean astrology still has any useful purpose or reason for being.

>> No.4395327

>>4395300
thats idiotic, do you know that most people science 'worships' completly rescpected and were aware of the importance of philosophy and practiced it
only buthurt quasiidiots science students can't comprehend such things
and philosophy is the basis of science because logic is the basis of math and logic arose from philosopy
the relation still exist, your parallel is not valid

>> No.4395345
File: 160 KB, 750x543, bearbro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4395345

>>4395327
>thats idiotic, do you know that most people science 'worships' completly rescpected and were aware of the importance of philosophy and practiced it

Many of those people also practiced alchemy. They were a product of their era and could not have known better.

Philosophy is technically the basis of science in that science is natural philosophy, but it's the only branch that is capable of demonstrating the validity of it's claims. As a result those sincerely interested in truth stick to that branch and those interested instead in protecting a falsehood from being discredited seek out some other branch, typically solipsism or something similar.

As a result when someone begins to talk about philosophy instead of simply saying science, I know bullshit is on the way.

>> No.4395349

>green

>> No.4395385

>>4395345
i had the creators of quantum physics in mind
they respected and practiced the philosophical approach

>> No.4395388
File: 42 KB, 457x450, deepak-chopra.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4395388

>>4395385
>i had the creators of quantum physics in mind
>they respected and practiced the philosophical approach

This is where that got them. See this shithead? His face is the first ne that comes to mind when the average American hears "quantum". Because Quantum can mean whatever you want it to if you're dealing in philosophy and not science.

>> No.4395395

>>4395388
no i ment schrodinger, einstein and planck

>> No.4395397

>>4395385
>creators of quantum physics

uhh.... nobody 'created' physics, asshole

>> No.4395400

>>4395388
yes ok, sorry

>> No.4395401

>>4395395
>einstein created quantum physics
holy shit buddy einstein didn't even believe in black holes, much less quantum physics, he disregarded it as drivel

>> No.4395404

>>4395401

He thought it was incomplete, he didn't disregard it.

>> No.4395406

>>4395397
yes people created physics
it is our tool only understandable to us
it is a good tool thow

>> No.4395407

>>4395385

bullshit. The biggest fights in quantum mechanics were over how it led to observable phenomena, something with which philosophy has never concerned itself.

>> No.4395414

god

>> No.4395418

>>4395401
lol
he participated on it his whole life
it was that part of time
he discredited it, but developed it also

>> No.4395420

>>4395404
Hmm you're probably right, but I have never actually read a quote from einstein, just hearsay about this stuff. Mind sharing a link or something to google? Tried but can't really find anything

>> No.4395428

>>4395420
Well, when it comes to science and philosophy, here's one.
>It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.

>> No.4395431

>>4395407
yes quantum mechanics introduced such philosophical questions
what you think tese people were stupid and din't wonder about there math
or how do you even think they developed their concepts
soly on interating previous mathematical models or interpreting experimental data
no.
also on heuristical speculation and thats philosophy

>> No.4395455

>>4395420

His famous quote "god doesn't play dice" was in regards to quantum randomness. Einstein was convinced that a probabilistic approach was missing something. The search for these "hidden variables" has hit a dead end in modern times, with Bell's inequalities proving that they cannot exist, at least not locally.

>> No.4395461

+ philosophy in regard to social questions
as if it didn't mater
it is a question of they way we live our lives
only someone who has only experienced a regresive and degraded social surroundings can not be aware of siginicance of such things

>> No.4395468

>quantum * (particularly in non scientific fields)

>consciousness
>cognition
>perception
>reality
>parallel universe
>multiverse
>m-theory
>string theory
>singularity
>"technology" used in the sense "we have new technologies to help facilitate..."

>> No.4395490

Ugh. Scientism at it's finest.

Schrodinger, Bohr, and Heisenburg were all important contributors to quantum mechanics who respected and expounded upon the philosophical implications of their findings. Why does anything that doesn't fit your rigid (rightfully so) paradigm automatically bullshit? Why can science be the answer to how things come about, but not why?

>> No.4395505

>>4395490

Because why is a meaningless and stupid question.

Also philosophy isn't "lets make shit up and then say quantum physics at the end"

>> No.4395516

>>4395505
Thank you for proving my point.

Assuming there isn't a "why" is just as philosophically driven as assuming there is one.

>> No.4395568

>evolutionary reasons

>> No.4395572

99% _____ free

sugar is 100% fat free - healthy!
crude oil is 100% natural
opium is 100% natural etc

with added pro-biotics

anything that makes a statement followed by a BIG GREEN TICK

>> No.4395575

>>4395516

I'm not assuming anything. Having no inherent purpose or why is a null statement. Logically, you have to prove to me that there is a why.

>> No.4395584

>homeopathy
>feng shui
>socioeconomics
>affirmative action
>equal opportunity
>Eastern philosophy
>global warming
>noble cause
>theoretical science

>> No.4395585

>reality
>helps
Mainly these two.

>> No.4395586 [DELETED] 

>>4395490
My word of the day? "renewables"

>> No.4395588

My word of the day? "renewables"

>> No.4395595

"effectively"

>> No.4395598

>Organic
>Chinese
>Dark
>String
>Evolved
*no seriously, there has to be a 90% chance that anything involving the world evolved will be something like "more evolved', "cleverly evolved to have", "evolved from"(some animal that evolved alongside), or some blatantly stupid shit about it.

>Singularity
>Dark Age
>Atheist
>Logical
>Real
>Processed
corn syrup and fructose are real sugars, not synthetic ones like aspartame.
processed food is the most bullshit term that invokes stupid ideas about what processes it went through. Oh and
>GM.
crossbreeding two things is no different from placing the genes you want from one into the other.

>> No.4395601

>>4394862
This.
It severely rustles my jimmies.

>> No.4395603

>>4395296
You mean reductionist when used pejoratively? I often call myself a reductionist.

>> No.4395608

selective breeding - vast differences seen between american and african blacks - vast differences seen between australian marino wool quality and some marino clinging to a hill in italy

changes happen in 50 years

evolution - cant possibly happen

>> No.4395616

>>4395057
lol'd

>> No.4395625

>>4395283
i think natural = not man made

again, not all natural things are that great for you.

cliffs and gravity and spikey rocks are natural

>> No.4395629

>>4395608
actually neither of those proves it's possible to become a different species incapable of breeding with each other.

>> No.4395634

>>4395629
im sure i have seen a thread about "are downers human" and since they cant reproduce with us the answer is no.

but if they can reproduce with eachother then that does prove evolution.

mystery island where downers are worshipped. eventually out compete normal people.

50,000 years later, nope they arent human and we dont know how they got to this point so cant prove or disprove evolution

>> No.4395641

As a logic grad student, anytime I see someone from outside logic talk about logic I cringe (especially economists).

>> No.4395643

>>4395634
and lions have mated with tigers right?

so tiger = lion?

surely a lion and tiger cannot be thought of the same as germansheppered and doberman - or are they the same as "dogs"

>> No.4395647

>>4395641

What about philosophers?

>> No.4395656

>>4395647

Depends on the philosopher. Most analytic types who are into philosophical logic are usually ok and know what they are talking about (within reason, if they are more logician than philosopher they are ok and usually have an idea about stuff like model and proof theory). The informal logic and critical reasoning programs that are usually subsumed under philosophy are ok as well.

>> No.4395666
File: 145 KB, 596x596, enigma machine.mudkip code.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4395666

>>4395641
What is it like to be....what you are? i.e. what is your day to day, what shit do you work on, what's your grind like? I'm curious (neurobio myself)

>> No.4395669

>>4395251

Yes, "alternative" immediately sets off the bullshit detector. For what it's worth, as a chemistry and molecular biology BS currently enrolled in a chemical biology PhD program, I have yet to come across even one promoter of alternative medicine who has any grasp on rudimentary organic or biological chemistry.

>> No.4395681

>>4395666

At the moment it consists of reading a ton of papers and books. Trying to get a overview of everything in the area, and by area I mean the insane amount of different logical systems out there that people have tweaked and built upon (my area is robinson arithmetic).

My daily grind is plugging in stuff I want to commit to long-term memory into memosyne, and trying to prove things that others have proved so I know my area inside and out. More abstractly, my day-to-day consists of thinking about the consequences of holding certain things true, and what that means in the bigger picture. Like what would happen if I hold one axiom true and another false under a certain logical system, and what are the consequences of that.

I also get to screw around with haskell and prolog under the guise of work.

>> No.4395689

>>4395641

Good man.

- Fellow logician.

>> No.4395738

>Truth

>> No.4395740

>>4395681
>>4395689
What do you think about the goal of formalizing all of mathematics so it can be checked by computer? Is it a good idea, and what do you think of the current efforts?

>> No.4395747

>>4395740

Well, Logic is a troublesome course for a computer.

I mean, a program can be trained to look for improper steps in a certain proof, however, it cannot really be trained to look at the meaning of the premises.

That doesn't mean that it can't happen, but for the time being, having a human look at a proof is more profitable to running it through a program. This is temporary, though. From what I've seen, some programs are moving up to first order logic and perhaps beyond.

>> No.4395750

>>4395643
Species is not whether two can breed, it's whether the offspring of the pairing can breed. Ligers cannot, neither can Tions, or mules.

>> No.4395770

>>4395641
Logic is simple and intuitive. Just because you're good enough of a bullshitter to squeeze four years out of its study doesn't make other people's use of it less valid.

>> No.4395789

>>4395770

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Not that guy, but please shut up. You're the reason that people think Logicians and Mathematicians have nothing in common.

I hear a warm bath and some steel razors will help you out more than retaking those Logic classes you failed. Follow up on that before you confuse another promising generation.

>> No.4395794

>>4394751
>god
>republican

>> No.4395800

>>4395770

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. You think that because you've read a bit on propositional or predicate logic, that you can talk for the entire field. Proof theory, model theory, or algebraic logic certainly isn't simple. Nor are there areas of logic that are intuitive (paraconsistent logic comes to mind as counter-intuitive). The rest of your statement is irrelevant.

>> No.4395812

>Natural
I couldn't agree more. Everything is natural. Thinking otherwise is usually just anthropocentrism.

>> No.4395817

>>4395800

Obvious fellow scholar, and I appreciate that.

While other may not appreciate your work, I do, and you should too.

>> No.4395827
File: 137 KB, 609x600, 1320131680649.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4395827

>Organic
>Anytime someone uses the full name rather than a well known acronym.
>Any set of words relating about money from a university
>Most of the words on 4Chan
>Any word surrounded by quotes that is not a citation or title.
>Any word a politician says

That about sums it up.

>> No.4395844

>discourse
>paradigm
>quantum (followed by some concept not from physics)
>astral

But also
> woo
>peer-reviewed
>quackwatch

>> No.4395845

>global warming
>evolution
>atheist
>big bang
>quantum

>> No.4395846

Holism (from ὂλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total) , is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts.[1][2]

>> No.4395850

>>4395800
Not the guy you were talking too, but:

Most people who would "talk about logic" wouldn't be referring to any of that. What do people actually get wrong when they refer to logic, other than all the Godel references?

>> No.4396123

>>4395575
>I'm not assuming anything. Having no inherent purpose or why is a null statement. Logically, you have to prove to me that there is a why.

I wouldn't have a problem with this statement, accept for the fact that you already said "why is a meaningless question," which means you DID make an assumption that there isn't a why.

Really? Something has to be proven to exist before it exists? I guess before the electromagnetic spectrum was discovered, ultraviolet light didnt exist then, huh?

>> No.4396134

>>4394858
So special relativity is bullshit ?

>> No.4396151

>has increased exponentially
>, scientists say.

>> No.4396153

>tesla

>> No.4396156

>>4396134

Just because it sets off my bullshytt detector does not mean that it is bullshit, just that it bears close examination and scepticism. There are of course exceptions to every rule, and you've locked onto one of them.

>> No.4396164

>the troops

>> No.4396166

>Actuality
>Spiritually (when used in the hippy/pagan sense)

>> No.4396181

>>4395468
>consciousness
>cognition
>perception
You dumb bro?

>> No.4396188

>>4396181
No, he probably just doesn't like that he doesn't know what they really are, that's all.

>> No.4396195
File: 133 KB, 800x1188, 1302462674626.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4396195

>global
>thus, on every fucking sentence