/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6432694]

>google cosmos air time
>first result to come up on google search
I laughed way harder than I should have.
This is just pathetic.

[Anonymous No.6432741]

>people thinking faith and science are mutually exclusive when they're completely different things
>people blurring science with faith and tying their well being to it
this is the real problem

[Anonymous No.6432947]

>>6432741
>someone mentions anything criticizing a theory
>fedoras pop out of thin air with their knee jerk reactions "URHRHUH CREATIONIST I'M EUPHORIC MATH IS PURE COLD HARD TRUTH THAT EXPLAINS THE UNIVERSE HURR"
Every fucking thread

[Anonymous No.6432958]

>>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.6432966]

>>6432947
i was criticizing the creationists, but i guess atheists can kind of fall into a similar trap from the opposite end

[Anonymous No.6432969]

>>6432947

>someone says something remotely secular
>fundies pop out of thin are with knee jerk reaction of dumping images of fat neckbeards in hats
Every fucking thread

[Anonymous No.6432973]

>>6432969
Taking any part of science as absolute and eternal truth is completely wrong and ascientific. Dogmas as a religious thing. Go study some more you positivist fedora wearer.

[Anonymous No.6433989]

>>6432947
This is possibly the least intelligent post I've read all month. Good job.

[Anonymous No.6434010]

>>6432741
>mutually exclusive when they're completely different things
This is confusing wording. I mean I know what you're trying to say and I don't disagree with you, but the wording seems contradictory.

That said, even though the two are different things at the fundamental level, they both have offered alternative explanations for the same things. Things that at one point could only be explained by religion can now also be explained by science. The ever expanding scope of scientific achievement creates a dilemma where religious believers are forced to either fight science, narrow their religious scope, or try to reconcile both belief systems in a non-standard ad-hoc way that varies from person to person. Until religious bodies begin standardizing what the scope of religion is in a world with science I don't think we can expect the two to amicably coexist.

I mean sure, one is based on the scientific method and the other is based on faith, but when faith is shaken by scientific achievements there is a conflict that is inappropriate to downplay.

[Anonymous No.6434012]

Daily reminder that the only reason Cosmos can piss off creationists so much and get away with it is Seth McFarland negotiated unconditional creative control for Neil Tyson and Ann Druyan.

Black Science Man could go on the air and piss on a crucifix before jacking it while yelling "oh Dawkins" until he cums on Jesus and there's nothing the suits could do about it.

All because Seth basically owns Fox.

[Anonymous No.6434017]

>>6434012
>Black Science Man could go on the air and piss on a crucifix before jacking it while yelling "oh Dawkins" until he cums on Jesus and there's nothing the suits could do about it.
I don't know why I laughed as hard as I did but it hurts to breathe now thanks to you.

[Anonymous No.6434033]

>>6432741
They actually are mutually exclusive. One is a dogma based on the will of some jew and the other is the seeking of truth, the study of reality. You can say whatever you want about spirits and shit, but if you don't bring proof about it, it will never be science.

[Anonymous No.6434048]

>>6434010
there's a simple way to adapt to it, and it can be summed up in a statement
>god will never act in a way that leave direct evidence of his existence or involvement, so faith acts completely independent of science.
problems arise when people try to blend the two
>theists claiming things are evidence of god's involvement
>atheists claiming faith fundamentally warps and precludes your acceptance of science

oversimplification, but that's the sparknotes of what's wrong

[Anonymous No.6434085]

>>6432694
>believe in something loosely akin to guided evolution, origin of life itself was divine, deity adjusted the environment to encourage changes rather than changing life directly when necessary to lead to humanity, otherwise ran on simple chance and adaption
>mfw idiots who take Genesis literally will always get more attention

[Anonymous No.6434100]

>>6434048
>People imposing on other people what God is
That's the most distracting thing.

[Anonymous No.6434123]

>>6434085
I'm glad my religious professor isn't a fundie. Most christians I grew up around were extreme fundies so I grew a distaste for Christianity. He makes me have hope for the religion as a whole.

[Anonymous No.6434131]

>>6432694

[Anonymous No.6434137]

>>6434131
What a constructive and insightful post.

[Anonymous No.6434141]

>>6434137
<implying you didn't laugh when this came up

[Anonymous No.6434142]

>>6434137

Do you not like epic memes?

[Anonymous No.6434147]

>>6434123
catholics or protestants?
most catholics i know are reasonable, the protestants are bible thumpers

[Anonymous No.6434148]

>>6434141
I didn't actually. In fact, I found it rather obnoxious and idiotic.

>>6434142
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.6434166]

>>6432958
Good try, man.

[Anonymous No.6434191]

I don't give a fuck about you faggots arguing about religion, but is Cosmos at least an interesting watch? I'm undergrad meche, in case having any particular background helps with the viewing experience.

[Anonymous No.6434198]

>>6434085
>Divine intervention when natural explanations suffice

Why the redundancy?

Not to say what you believe isn't true, since it isn't decidable by science, but it does make for redundant metaphysical baggage.

[Anonymous No.6434214]

>>6434191
>pop sci suitable for children

You don't need any background. It's also very likely there's nothing said in this series you wouldn't already know or heard of, so your mileage may vary. I get a kick out of its scientistic propaganda and the ensuing conservatard reactions but that's just me.

[Anonymous No.6434211]

>>6434191
I've really enjoyed it so far. Its kinda made for the people who know nothing about science but the visuals are grand.

[Anonymous No.6434223]

>>6434211
>>6434214
Alright, thanks.

[Anonymous No.6434245]

>>6434223
To echo what he said, it's more about flair than substance, but the flair is good and what substance is there is nice.

Don't go into it expecting to learn anything. Go into it expecting pleasant, science-themed entertainment.

[Anonymous No.6434451]

>>6434033
You sound like a /pol/ version of me when I was five.

[Anonymous No.6434455]

>>6434033
Science does not seek truth. Truth is immutable (Sounds like a dogma doesn't it?). Science seeks well.. God knows what. You could say it seeks to make better abstractions and mostly use math as a tool/language. When you say scientists seek truth you are being an euphoric idiot.

[Anonymous No.6434467]

>>6432694
>creationists want more airtime for religion on science series

[Anonymous No.6434480]

>fundies bitched when Sagan´s original cosmos aired.
>fundies bitch again when Science Nigger whipes the floor with them.

This follows my pattern of expectation.
Who gives a shit, Cosmos is already filmed, produced, done and done.
If they want more airtime they better start getting their cameras ready.

[Anonymous No.6434483]

This is all the fault of the American protestants and their insistence on a literal reading of the Bible.

Catholics have no such problem.

[Anonymous No.6434495]

>>6434483

This. Catholics have long since accepted Evolution and Big Bang theory as likely explanations of our universe. They just believe that God was the catalyst, it's the American retard creationists that are the problem.

[Anonymous No.6434500]

>mfw i believe in both science and God
>mfw i believe God created us using evolution
>mfw i believe Human are evil and science or religion are geed or at least natural

[Anonymous No.6434502]

>>6434500
>i believe in [...] science
stopped reading there
ur an idiot

[Anonymous No.6434507]

>>6434502
Care to Explain ?

[Anonymous No.6434517]

>>6434507
>Hurr durr science is absolute and only truth.
That's what he said. Just ignore the fedora underages

[Anonymous No.6434525]

>>6432694
Tyson is too weak to be the narrator. It's a struggle to listen to his voice, whereas with Sagan it's so unique and YOOMANS.

WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY JUST GET MORGAN FREEMAN TO DO IT

WHY

[Anonymous No.6434524]

>>6434455
Evidence. Science seeks evidence.

[Anonymous No.6434526]

>>6434517
I think he was just pointing out that one isn't a belief system.

[Anonymous No.6434563]

>>6434525
Personally, I could have enjoyed a good female speaker just as well.

Especially one with big boobs.

[Anonymous No.6434576]

>>6432973
Thats not the issue

The issue is scientific theories are backed up by facts and evidence and are falsifiable

The same cant be said of religious hypothesis, hence why no religious hypothesis in cosmos

[Anonymous No.6434584]

>>6434525
Carl Sagans voice is godlike

If you know what asmr is, I wish this fucker wouldve been alive long enough to find out

[Anonymous No.6434592]

>>6434584
>The nature and classification of the ASMR phenomenon is controversial. Tom Stafford, a professor at the University of Sheffield, says, "It might well be a real thing, but it's inherently difficult to research."[1]
Ok m8

[Anonymous No.6434601]

>>6434592

As in I want him to voice some of that shit and give me the delicious tingles.

In all seriousness though, to my knowledge asmr is in the same boat that synesthesia was back before it was verified as an occuring phenomenon. Give it time, itll be discovered eventually

[Anonymous No.6434739]

>>6434048
>>god will never act in a way that leave direct evidence of his existence or involvement, so faith acts completely independent of science.
Which god(s)?