Set jimmies on "rustle."

[Anonymous No.5978788]

[Anonymous No.5978790]

[Anonymous No.5978792]

[Anonymous No.5978791]

[Anonymous No.5978793]

[Anonymous No.5978797]

[Anonymous No.5978799]

[Anonymous No.5978800]

[Anonymous No.5978801]

I could see Feynman actually saying this one drunken night.

[Anonymous No.5978802]

[Anonymous No.5978805]

[Anonymous No.5978806]

[Anonymous No.5978807]

[Anonymous No.5978810]

Dawkins seems to be an easy target for this kinda stuff.
Anywho, I'm out. Go use them as bait on Facebook. Or don't. whatever.

[Anonymous No.5978831]

So dumb, yet so entertaining.

[Anonymous No.5978835]

>>5978810
If you want to use them as bait, you should add less spelling errors.

[Anonymous No.5978836]

>>5978805
The wording could be subtler, but great.

[Anonymous No.5978837]

>>5978801
pffffffahahah, I guess I will post that one every time someone uses the genuine quote

[Anonymous No.5978844]

>>5978802
my sides

[Anonymous No.5978848]

>>5978800
Freud's not a good choice, because the things he actually said were just as ridiculous. Dude did pseudoscience, not science.

[Anonymous No.5978851]

>>5978848
Perfect illustration of the kind of person this pic will work great on.
Thanks for dropping by.

[Anonymous No.5978857]

>>5978851
What, the kind of person who knows you're joking and thinks you made a bad joke?

"Hah hah! Little did you suspect that the joke was bad... ON PURPOSE!"

[Rei !p8eYCadcMo No.5978862]

Can someone pls post a Descartes pic with the "any community who gets laughs by pretending to be retarded is eventually flooded by actual retards" caption?

[Anonymous No.5978861]

>>5978851

It was a clever meta ruse all along.

[Anonymous No.5978863]

>>5978857
>What, the kind of person who knows you're joking
If it was posted in another context, you wouldn't know it.

[Anonymous No.5978866]

>>5978863
You go on believing that.

[Anonymous No.5978868]

>>5978862
You know that's a fake quote, right?

He only actually said, "Give her the dick."

[Rei !p8eYCadcMo No.5978871]

>>5978868
Yeah I know. The guy in the pic is not Descartes either.

[Anonymous No.5978872]

>>5978866
You go on believing whatever you read on forums and popsci articles.

[Rei !p8eYCadcMo No.5978877]

>>5978875
Thanks, m8.

[Anonymous No.5978875]

>>5978862

[Anonymous No.5978878]

>>5978872
Yes, I must believe whatever I read on forums and popsci articles because I think your intentionally bad joke is not any funnier for being intentionally bad.

[Anonymous No.5978883]

>>5978878
>agnignignagna
Woaw, stop your bitching, you admitted yourself you didn't find it any different from Freud's actual thoughts. You said it, not me.

[Anonymous No.5978894]

>>5978801

As he is sketching nude strippers in the backroom of a bar. Feynman was awesome.

[Anonymous No.5978897]

>>5978883
>you admitted yourself you didn't find it any different from Freud's actual thoughts
No, I said that the things he actually said were just as ridiculous. That's not the same as "not any different".

Freud was a ridiculous crackpot. Even in psychology, which is still full of crackpots being taken seriously and pseudoscientific methods, what Freud did isn't claimed to be scientific.

[Anonymous No.5978964]

[Anonymous No.5978983]

>>5978964
Meh, I'll hate drawing attention to myself, but I'd like some feedback on this one. I'm unsure about it, and I would like to know if there's something I can improve (or if I should just forget the whole idea).

[Anonymous No.5978992]

>>5978964

Too condescending.

[Anonymous No.5979011]

>>5978992
Shoulda known that's my problem.
I can't seem to shake it off.

[Anonymous No.5979018]

>>5979011

Just word it more politely and to the point.

[Anonymous No.5979022]

>>5979018
I'll try after dinner.

[Anonymous No.5979031]

>>5978964
Not wrong enough.

[Anonymous No.5979032]

>>5978801
fun fact: "Feynman" sounds almost exactly like Polish "fajny man", which means "cool guy".

[Anonymous No.5979035]

>>5978964
You did it wrong. Those quotes are supposed to be factually incorrect. You weren't supposed to make an informative picture teaching people about relativity.

[Anonymous No.5979038]

[Anonymous No.5979041]

>>5978897
>psychology, which is still full of crackpots being taken seriously and pseudoscientific methods
Nobody wants to hear that forum drivel again and again and again, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5979046]

Obligatory post.

[Anonymous No.5979066]

>>5979041
>forum drivel
Dude, seriously. You come in here, make a joke treating Freud, of all ridiculous people, as if he was some great figure in science, and then you expect anyone to take you seriously when you try to argue that there are no crackpots or pseudoscience in psychology?

"Soft science" is a polite way to say "not science". There is some real science being done in the corners of psychology, but generally, it's only the stuff that would more properly be labelled as neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.5979077]

>>5979066
>all that strawmaning
Yes, we get it, you read a transcript of feynman speeches about pseudoscience and now you go around repeating it and pontificating to everyone who will hear it.
The problem here is we all read it already. We read the popsci articles about the "great debate" about Freud.
The problem is you don't have anything interesting to say about epistemology, psychology, or Freud, and this is getting boring real quickly.

[Anonymous No.5979082]

>>5979066
>in the corners of psychology
>it's only the stuff that would more properly be labelled as neuroscience

That's a lot of edge, it's really surprising you haven't cut yourself with it yet.

[Anonymous No.5979085]

>>5979066
>"Soft science" is a polite way to say "not science".
>in the corners of psychology, but generally, it's only the stuff that would more properly be labelled as neuroscience

That's a lot of edge, it's really surprising you haven't cut yourself with it yet.

[Anonymous No.5979086]

>>5979077
There is no "great debate" about Freud. The nicest thing anyone respectable has to say about him anymore is that he was "pre-scientific".

Look at all of these great minds of science, from all different fields. You're the only one posting a psychologist, and the only one objecting when someone points out that he wasn't a scientist.

People aren't quietly agreeing with you, they just don't want to be bothered getting into an argument with an obvious idiot.

[Anonymous No.5979087]

>>5979066
>but generally, it's only the stuff that would more properly be labelled as neuroscience.
This is not correct. While I and most psychologists agree that Freud is outdated and was more based in philosophy than in science, there is still more science in psychology than neuroscience. Everything involving experimental and statistical observations of human behaviour qualifies as use of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.5979099]

>>5979086
>You're the only one posting a psychologist
>implying it was me
>all those unwarranted assumptions
>implying you're talking with one person
Real scientific.

[Anonymous No.5979105]

>>5979086
>baaaaaaaaw why don't you listen to my very interesting opinion about psychoanalysis I formed from a Scientific American article and a couple of pop culture cliches.

[Anonymous No.5979119]

>>5979087
Oh look, it's, "It applies some of the tools of science, therefore it is science."

Doing math on it doesn't make it science any more than running it through a computer makes it computer science.

The scientific method is more than formulating a hypothesis, gathering data, and reaching a conclusion. The hypothesis must be *well-formed* and *falsifiable*. The data must be *objective* and potentially sufficient to falsify the hypothesis. The conclusion must be based on *unbiased* and *rigorous* reasoning.

Without those things, it's not the scientific method, and what you're actually practicing is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.5979122]

>>5979119
Psychology applies the scientific method. Stay mad, kid.

[Anonymous No.5979123]

>>5979119
>The hypothesis must be *well-formed* and *falsifiable*.
It is.

>The data must be *objective* and potentially sufficient to falsify the hypothesis.
It is.

>The conclusion must be based on *unbiased* and *rigorous* reasoning.
It is.

[Anonymous No.5979124]

>>5979099
>You're not wrong, in fact it's obvious that you're right, but if you call me out on my blatant samefagging, I'm going to accuse you of sloppy thinking and imply that this hurts your position.

[Anonymous No.5979130]

>>5979123
Assert some more.

Meanwhile, in schools with a faculty of art and a faculty of science, psychology majors get a BA instead of a BSc.

[Anonymous No.5979133]

>>5979130
Only at shitty community colleges like yours. Here in Europe psychology is a BSc degree. Your anti-intellectualism is showing.

[Anonymous No.5979149]

>>5979133
>Your anti-pseudointellectualism is showing.

[Anonymous No.5979179]

>>5979124
>hurr durr samefag
Oh boy this is gonna hurt.

[Anonymous No.5979181]

these are just getting more and more ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.5979185]

>>5979124
>You're not wrong
Yes you are, don't even think I said something different.
You came barging in this thread staying stupid shit like "yeah Freud is only ridiculous claims liek wanting to fuck ur mum and phsychology is a piece of shit, amirite guize?"
It's obvious you never set foot in a psycho class or never read anything that wasn't pop sci.

[Anonymous No.5979186]

>>5979179
>you can't create fake screenshots

When the hell did people start believing this could work as evidence?

[Anonymous No.5979198]

>>5979185
You know, if you want to be taken seriously when defending the claim that psychology is a science, you should really not claim that Freud was a real scientist in the same breath.

[Anonymous No.5979332]

>>5979186
Thanks for confirming how much you hang of nothing.