/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6307751
It's written in words, not mathematics.

I speak and think in words.

>>6307735
>Great scientists loved philosophy

For the same reason I love ethics and video games

They're easy.

>>6307733
...Gauss, Euler, Cauchy, Newton/Leibniz did.

>>6307715
Actually I'm busily NOT studying complex analysis, a 2nd year undergrad maths course taught in half the time.

Now fuck off.

>>6307707
No it won't.

Here's how much general relativity there is in most undergraduate physics degrees.

Meanwhile there's quite a bit devoted to newton's central force.

Here's how much QED there is in a physics degree.

Meanwhile there is a whole course on classical and relatavistic electrodynamics.

These new reformulations DID NOT CHANGE the old.

>>6307700
And though I might be better in finishing sequences, I may be much worse at learning calculus than a friend.

Although that'll be due to the fact I think arguing on the internet is a better use of my time than say, studying.

>>6307691
Actually, in rowing 2134 can be considered different from 1234. One will often perform quite differently than another.

>>6307689

>>6307679
Why would it hurt my feelings.

It's flawed because it's a test based on simple reasoning and pattern recognition skills but cannot adaquately judge intelligence in its broadest sense. It's rather like using BMI as a predictor of health. Good for populations, poor for individuals in some circumstances.

>>6307670
I got tested once when I was 12 and was in the 98th percentile.

But never mind that, IQ is a flawed definition of intelligence. Stop defaming the word scientific.

>>6307641
>That's why IQ is bullshit.

IQ is bullshit, but that's not why

>>6307657
>one year of physics

Actually 2, top kek

>>6307656
>And without alchemy there wouldn't be any chemistry. And without astrology there wouldn't be any astrophysics.

#rekt #shotsfired

>>6307647
>We don't have a final point where objective truth is discovered

This doesn't mean anything.

There's a limit to how much you can learn about this universe fundamentally.

>>6307633
When phlogiston was suggested, used and discarded, the theory of oxygenation had still had to explain all the things phlogiston theory did, why metals and wood burned but water does not, why things in sealed containers don't burn for long etc.

Oxygenation merely corrected the details about mass conservation.

What makes you think there will be more 'paradigms to shift'

>>6307629
Meanwhile those of us with degrees understand why an atom is the shape and size it is, why stars shine with the colour they do, why metals conduct and why a moving charge produces an electric field and why wires give of radio waves.

You can tell us... what, sorry?

>>6307604
His point was science is really flawed and will be totally different 500 years from now.

My counterpoint is, actually only a little bit will change. Whilst 'in theory', hypothetically everything could change, all the theories could be rewritten and the old textbooks regarded with patronising nostalgia, it won't happen because in order for it be discovered and used in the first place it has to be useful, has to work, and anything new will have to have the old results as the limiting case.

And I'll argue with namecalling as much as I want. This is 4chan. And I find namecalling amusing.

>>6307605
you'll be a poor human bean who is a net drain on the accumulated knowledge of the species by polluting it with incorrect memes.

But at least you'll feel fine about it.

>>6307588

I prefer /fit/. At least when people are wrong there, all that's gonna happen is they won't make gains. Or they'll have to take loads of drugs & get gyno.

>>6307582
>Science cannot explain everything that happens in the world.

It's an iterative process...

>>6307579
Newton's theory of gravitation hasn't been abandoned. Because it works for a lot of things.

It worked, it still works, there're just a few cases where, to get the right answer or a more accurate answer, you have to use the new theory. And that's the new way of looking at the world, but the old one got you there, it stood for a long time because it WORKED.

Why am I arguing with idiots.

>>6307565
>so what has Hawking done that is so important?
>hawking is a retarded Americlap

>>6307564
>widely accepted in logic
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

did you even read the article.

I'm sorry I brought the mystery of the scientific method down to a level you could understand. It was a waste of my time.

>>6307553
>Or maths?
You don't hear about them because they do boring things. Like solving Fermat's theorem or discovering the exponential function or generally integrating in the complex plain.

Some Newton's of maths would be Euler, Gauss, Cauchy, Newton.

Basically, anyone who's name keeps appearing.