[ 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: 918 KB, 2440x1800, 1334311248385.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5038761 No.5038761[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why is /sci/ no longer a board for people who just love science for the sake of science? I mean, look at the top threads. It's filled with homework help and troll threads. When there are actual science threads nobody responds to them.
I used to be able to come here to absorb some good science and have fun arguments. Now it's just trolling and shitposting.

Really guys, let's just stop it and get back to science. Science is so much more fun than trolling.

tl;dr stop shitposting, get science

So here, I'll start with the science question of the day: Do you think it is possible for a multiverse to exist? If so, what can we benefit from it?

>> No.5038773

>>5038761
Because science has yet to provide me with a hydraulic penis and I'm pretty pissed about it.

>> No.5038777

>>5038773
Good for you.

>> No.5038782

I just think the daniella titan trolls, the cnscouness/perception trolls, the religion=fairy tales trolls, the "inane and irrelevant" trolls, and the NUT SIENCE trolls need to go.

>> No.5038784

/b/ now seems to have better discussions with less trolling than /sci/.

That's just sad.

>> No.5038807

>>5038777
No it's not good for me.

Assholes like you are why we can't have nice things.

>> No.5038820

I know you're tring hard OP, but intepretations of quantum mechanics is hardly what I would call not a troll thread. Or even remotely scientific. You're asking for an arguement that degenerates into namecalling about conciousness.

Please don't make meta-threads, no matter how strongly you feel >>/q/

>> No.5038854

>metathread about shitposting
>discussion about multiverse
Oh the irony

>> No.5038858

>complains about shitposting
>wants to talk about the multiverse, i.e. untestable hypothetical philosophy troll nonsense

lal

>> No.5038863

>>5038782
How about you take your religious nonsense to >>>/x/?

>> No.5038883

Are you all stupid? There are ways to test the multiverse theory, ranging from mathematical models examination to background radiation studies.
There's also the question of how we would use it, in what ways, etc.

>> No.5038888

>>5038863
It gets out of hand when people spam meditation and psychology threads with that, while at the same time, the obvious trollbait and trolling daniela titan shit stays.

In fact, people started shittng on a thread about randomly genraed images because someone mentioned, probably jokingly, about it predcting the future. Of course it can't, but there's no reason to sash and burn the thread because of it.

>> No.5038890

>>5038888
>sash and burn
*slash and burn

>> No.5038891

>>5038883
Can't tell if pop sci retard or troll.

>> No.5038894

>>5038888
Meditation as a spiritual exercise is not /sci/ content and does belong to >>>/x/.

>> No.5038898
File: 95 KB, 3200x3200, mad_face_boy_ARaFULLrolld.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5038898

>>5038761

Here is why we shit on /sci/:

if someone asks an /sci/ question, the gurus swarm in and tell OP how stupid he or she is, unless OP is the head operator of the haldron collider.

/sci/ is full of elitist shitbags.

that is why /sci/ attracts trolls.

>> No.5038899

>>5038888
How is Daniela Titan trolling? The videos are science related and you can't blame the OPs for the off-topic trolling that goes on in these threads.

>> No.5038912

>>5038761
meta thread bitching about troll threads is troll thread

>> No.5038913

>>5038891
How about you learn to read? I wasn't saying you can prove it, I was saying you can test it, as in check for plausibility.

>> No.5038914

>>5038899
I said rage-bait for a reason.
>>5038894
Just because that is what originally started out as doesn't mean it hasn't changed to something of many different forms/styles/kinds, many of which are secular and have been studied and proven to be real and have positive effects.

>> No.5038917

>>5038913
And that's wrong.

>> No.5038927

>>5038914
Nonetheless meditation is not science. Even if by means of twisted rhetorics you make it seem non-spiritual (which is of course nonsense, but I'm too tired to discuss now), it does still not belong here. You could redirect it to /fit/ then, as it is related to the body. /sci/ is about science and not about obscure hobbies.

>> No.5038939

>>5038917
No. You can check for the plausibility of anything, including deities. It's basic logic really.

>> No.5038946

>>5038927
When you meditate your brain lowers its activity. There's no argument there, it's just like hypnotizing yourself. The rest of it though is open for debate. It's pretty probable that it has actual good effects on you, because it is very calming.

>> No.5038949

>>5038939
So you say it's as scientific as deities? I agree, it's entirely unscientific nonsense. Please take untestable claims to >>>/x/

>> No.5038951

>>5038946
>When you meditate your brain lowers its activity

Actually it's exactly the opposite.

>> No.5038954

>>5038927
Psychology is science.

>> No.5038956

>>5038946
People are coming here asking for how to practice this spiritual exercise, not for scientific studies on its effects on the brain.

>> No.5038957

>>5038954

No it isn't.

>> No.5038959

>>5038954
Spiritualism and mumbo jumbo isn't psychology.

>> No.5038963

>>5038949
I have't chimed in on your cnversation within this thread yet, but I wanted to say that /x/ isn't for serious discussion.

>> No.5038968

>>5038963
So what? Unfalsifiable nonsense isn't a "serious" topic.

>> No.5038986

>>5038968
From your point of view, and from the point of view of most of the board, it isn't. But for some people it is. This board's topic, but not its people, render this the best place to talk about multiverse theory.

/phi/ can be for deities stuff.

>> No.5038991

>>5038949
No, you still don't understand. I'll give you a basic example: There are 200 cars in Carville. 95% of the cars are red. The rest are blue. Carville is located on an isolated island somewhere in the ocean. Now, somebody claims there are actually 201 cars, and the 201st car is yellow, however, only he can see it. How plausible is that? Not very plausible, although you cannot say impossible. The options range from that person hallucinating to him being a genius creating an invisible yellow car for the intent of trolling Carville. It doesn't matter because the possibility is there, just very unlikely.

You can do the same with everything in this world. Find explanations to how A fits E, and see how plausible they are. For example, try to find remnants of a collision between two universes which could express in a form of background radiation. Unlikely? Yes, but testable.
Another example for that is a theory that states universes could branch off from other universes, similar to how bubbles form on the sides of a kettle. I don't remember its name, if I remember it I'll post more info here. Anyway, you could take this theory and develop models for it, and see how plausible there are, thus reducing or increasing the probability for a multiverse to exist.

>> No.5038995

>>5038991
how plausible they* are

>> No.5038999

>>5038986
This board's topic is science and math. Untestable and unfalsifiable claims are neither science nor math.

>>5038991
Then why the fuck are you inventing cars that aren't there? Are you a troll? You shot yourself in the foot with your stupid analogy.

>> No.5039001

>>5038957
psychology and biology memes are old already, just stop it already.
It's a science according to every definition of science.

>> No.5039008

>>5038999
Look up the definition of "science".

>> No.5039009

>>5038999
Uh.. what?
I don't quite see what's wrong with my analogy. Maybe you just didn't understand the point behind it.
Please try to make better arguments than insults please. Also nice job ignoring the rest of the post. >inb4 i ignored it because it's retarded

>> No.5039015
File: 61 KB, 504x504, newmeme4eee6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5039015

>>5038761

let me propose a hypothesis: trolling is science

it is the hardest of all sciences, for it is the science of human nature.

the most gifted of all molecular biologists hates his assistants, because they are human.

same for theoretical physicists, and ball players.

see?

>> No.5039024

>>5039015
then let's rename this /troll/

>> No.5039025

>>5039008
Science is the application of the scientific method. It's not scientific if it's not falsifiable, otherwise how are you going to use the scientific method?

Not the anon you were talking to by the way.

>> No.5039031
File: 114 KB, 400x411, new_meme_white_guy1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5039031

>>5039024

that's a bit excessive

>> No.5039034

>>5039025
Crappy definition. I prefer the definition that science is a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.

>> No.5039035

>>5039008
I'm studying science, so I know what it is about. I guess you are either trolling or still in middle school.

>>5039009
Your analogy was saying that unfalsifiable claims are nonsense. I agree. You can hardly use such an analogy to justify posting of unfalsifiable claims on a science board.

>> No.5039036

>>5039034
Why isn't astrology a science then? It's a body of knowledge.

>> No.5039039

>>5039036
"..that can be logically and rationally explained"

>> No.5039043

>>5039034
What you prefer is irrelevant. Science isn't about opinions. Your "definition" is wrong.

>> No.5039046

>>5039039

Define "rationally explained"

>> No.5039050

>>5039039
Do you know that falsifiability is part of that? Maybe you should read up on the scientific method.

>> No.5039052

>>5039035
It is nonsense but the probability still exists and you can still analyze different situations that could lead to the assertion. The examples I gave regarding the multiverse were actual testable theories, however we/the theories are not advanced and developed enough yet for any kind of verification, so for now you can only base on plausibility, which proves to be high on that subject. A big majority of the scientific community has moved to the multiverse side because the proposed theories fit well with our current universal theories.

>> No.5039055

>>5039035
Which branch of science are you studying?

I ask this because I'm fairly certain someone cannot "study science" withoutit being a very specialized thing or philosophy.

>> No.5039063

>>5039050
What does that have to do with anything? I was replying to astrology guy
>>5039046
Oh, just get out already. Debating with you is always *some well-based claim*... "OH REALLY? DEFINE X! HAH I'M RIGHT".

>> No.5039064

>>5039052
>It is nonsense

Exactly. You should have stopped writing there. Nonsense is not what we want to discuss on /sci/.

>>5039055
How is my person relevant to the discussion? You're just preparing your next ad hominems because you're out of arguments to support your trolling nonsense.

>> No.5039066

>>5039063
Are you dismissing falsifiability as a property of scientific theories? Then invisible rape demons are science now. Cool.

>> No.5039069

>>5039043
And how is it wrong exactly? That definition is widely used. If something can be tested using the scientific method, then it can be rationalized and logically explained. The definitions are equivalent, but one is better worded and applies more generally.

>> No.5039076

>>5039069
>claims equivalence
>shows only one direction of implication

Time for you to go back to school. Logic isn't your strong suit.

>> No.5039081

>>5039066
What do you want? Are you even replying to me? Nothing you say is remotely related to anything I wrote.
>>5039064
I meant that while the overall assertion might be nonsense, related events and situations that can support it are usually analyzable and by checking their plausibility you are changing the plausibility of the original claim.

>> No.5039083

>>5039076
*semantic equivalence
sorry

>> No.5039084

>>5039069
How are you going to use the scientific method if it's unfalsifiable?

How would you use the scientific method to test an hypothesis that claims it's content is unprovable?

>> No.5039089

>>5038761
People love a challenge, especially when they dont actually have to do it.

>> No.5039092

>>5039084
If it is unprovable then you cannot logically rationalize it.

>> No.5039091

>>5039084
>its content

>> No.5039093

>>5039064
I'm not here to use ad hominim. I'm not even here to debate. I just want everyone to know all sides and all parts of those sides. Also I was curious.

>> No.5039099

>>5039081
>Nothing you say is remotely related to anything I wrote.
Oh wow, you can't even understand a simple sentence.

>I meant that while the overall assertion might be nonsense
There, you did it again. You admitted it is nonsense, yet you keep talking about it. Stop.

>> No.5039106

>>5039083
Semantic equivalence still has to be bidirectional. You have no idea what you're talking about. Please educate yourself.

>>5039093
> all sides and all parts of those sides
Science doesn't care about opinions.

>> No.5039109

>>5039092
Some guy said
>This board's topic is science and math. Untestable and unfalsifiable claims are neither science nor math.
You answered with:
>Look up the definition of "science".

What were you trying to say exactly?

>> No.5039121

>>5039099
You got from "I was replying to astrology guy" to "you're dismissing falsifiability as a property of scientific theories". I was genuinely confused.
>>5039109
Wasn't me
>>5039106
Incorrect. Stop trolling.

>> No.5039127

>>5039121
>incorrect

Do you even know what "equivalence" means? How fucking retarded are you? Equivalence is ALWAYS bidirectional.

>> No.5039133

>>5039127
Equivalence = same logical content.

Again, stop trolling.

>> No.5039135

>>5039133
0/10, if trolling

I would literally consider crying, if you were seriously that dumb.

>> No.5039137

>>5039133
How do you determine if something has the "same logical content"? Damn right, faggot, by proving TWO directions of implications.

>> No.5039145

>>5039106
>>5039127
>Science doesn't care about opinions.
This is untrue. Also, "Science" isn't a single entity like you say it is.

>> No.5039153

>>5039145
Science can falsify nonsense. We test hypotheses in science and if they are wrong, they are about to get dismissed. How old are you that you don't know this?

>> No.5039166

>>5039153
You don't dismis things before you test them.

>> No.5039174

>>5039166
Yes, you do. If things are untestable and have no evidence, you dismiss them by use of Occam's razor.

>> No.5039177

>>5039127
>>5039135
So this is what /sci/ has reduced to?
Seriously, think for yourselves.

1. According to most non-classic logic constructs, you are both wrong.

2. I don't need to prove A and B are semantically equivalent if it's obvious that they have the same logical content and implications.

>> No.5039182

1) Possible, yes.

2) Why care about "benefit"? The world does not revolve around you.

>> No.5039191

>>5039177
How stupid are you? Can't you into logic?

X <=> Y means X => Y AND Y=>X

That's what equivalence means.

Now get the fuck out of the science and math board, you sub 40 IQ retard.

>> No.5039199

>>5039191
That's exactly what it means, I never said otherwise. I said that you don't have to show the equivalence if it's obvious. Can't you read?

Also if I was sub 40 IQ I wouldn't be able to type in the captcha.

>> No.5039203

>>5039199
You claimed the exact opposite all the time, you fucking retard. Stop this trolling garbage. People like you are the reason why /sci/ has become a shitposting board.

>> No.5039210

>>5036963
>Ctrl-f consciousness

This kind of back-and forth unintellectual shitflinging needs to go. It's all
>waah-waah it's fairy tales!
>nuh it's not!

>> No.5039225

>>5039203
Your reading skills really suck. I never claimed otherwise, it's just that you claim I have to show the implications of each definition to say it's equivalent, which is wrong. The classic f -> e -e > -f does not hold true according to most non-classic logic models, which is also what I claimed.

/sci is crap because you immature highschoolers can't have a discussion without trolling and throwing insults everywhere.

>> No.5039247

>>5039225
And now you're claiming the opposite again. You're either trolling or fucking retarded. In both cases please educate yourself and learn some logic.

>> No.5039262

>>5039247
I give up.
Seems that your brain cannot comprehend my text.

>> No.5039270

>>5039262
There's nothing to comprehend. You're posting asinine trolling garbage.

>> No.5039279

>>5039270
I'm serious, you really just didn't understand what I wrote. That's why your replies seem so unrelated.

>> No.5039289

>>5039279
You claimed equivalence doesn't require to show both directions of implications. That's plain wrong.

>> No.5039302

>>5039289
I don't have to when it's obvious and uses loosely. Semantic equivalence in the context I'm using it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_equivalence

You really should have just read "Semantic equivalence" instead of proceeding on to rage.

>> No.5039319

>>5039302
It was in no way obvious and in fact you used incorrect. Your silly attempts to cover up your ignorance are futile.

>> No.5039397

>>5039319
It was obvious, just admit that you didn't know the term and that's why you went full arrogance mode. There are no silly attempts, that's what I meant and that's all there is to it.
There's nothing wrong about how I used it as well. I used it to show the semantics of both definition, and semantic equivalence fit best, because they are equivalent in meaning. If you deny that then there is no hope.

>> No.5039402

>>5039397
You used it incorrectly. Don't try to hide your failure now. You can just admit that you were wrong. You're anonymous.

>> No.5039480

>what can we benefit from it?

which we?