/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't know. The latest Marmaduke?

Yeah, if you define "faith" to mean literally *everything*, regardless of probability and plausibility, then I guess everything, including science, does indeed require it. Of course that's just semantic gymnastics in defense of a mushy ideology, anyway.

>Extra Credits
Should have closed the tab right there.

>>5404362
Wait, I just looked up who "Leonard Sweet" is. Never fucking mind.

That image is terrible. The clinical definition of death has nothing to do with "changes". The body changes continuously at all times, even after cardiac arrest and brain death, if only in the form of decomposition.

Duncecap Dobson, inventor of the snow cone and the Sega CD.

>>5375686
>for details watch Video Seminar Part 7 by Dr. Kent Hovind

>>5375519
Apologies. Someone crossposted the thread you linked on /pol/ and /sci/.

The simple answer is, they make shit up for ideological purposes. There is no way of collecting such data, because even if the people making those assertions actually bothered to do polls, those polls would be hopelessly, uselessly unreliable. It's literally impossible to accurately estimate the number of rape victims, who never report the crime to either the police or a poller, for example.

>>5375490
I don't know why you're asking this *again*, though. You made a similar thread earlier and people sufficiently answered your question.

>it's /pol/ here

As opposed to... field intellectuals?

Watch the sequences.

>>5354430
No, the claim that every human emotion is now officially a mental disorder is not the truth. His description of GAD is manipulatively inaccurate too.

Just ignore NaturalNews altogehter. It's literally nothing but a propaganda site.

>>5354407
This.

>College is nothing more than a status symbol to "prove" to others you are knowledgeable
So it is useful after all. Sweet.

>>5353839
>Maybe a billion electrons will make it from one neuron to another in the first nanosecond; maybe a billion and two.
That's what I meant by:
>and if there are relevant quantum effects at an even lower level, then the outcomes of those effects would still be pieces in an ultimately deterministic chain of cause an effect.
I understand the probabilistic nature of your example, but I would assume that a quantum effect would ultimately affect processes *above* the quantum level, and from there on out, things would run deterministically.

But just to reiterate: This is all my pedestrian interpretation of quantum mechanics and its effects on consciousness. Please don't read too much conviction into it.

>>5353841
Because you think about queers and faggots a lot, I guess.

>>5353829
>cause an effect
*and

>>5353816
I could very well be wrong, but I don't think there are any deterministic propositions dealing with consciousness (in the pragmatic sense of neurological functioning) that were crushed by quantum physics. I mean, neurons aren't quantum particles, and if there are relevant quantum effects at an even lower level, then the outcomes of those effects would still be pieces in an ultimately deterministic chain of cause an effect.

Crysis on max.

>>5353585
Determinism doesn't make any explicit claims regarding *moral* responsibility. What it does claim is that the shooter's decisions were not made within a causal vacuum.

>>5353519
Yes.

Maybe you forgot to put your pants on.

>Does religion fall in to the category of Pseudoscience
No.

>if not then why not
It lacks the pretense of adherence to scientific principles. You can only have a pseudo-anything if there's an attempt at being (perceived as) the proper thing. Religion generally doesn't do that, although there are gray areas on the fringes, like Scientology or some New Age movements.

Of course there is also pseudoscience *within* certain religions, like creationism, but that's not a religion all by itself.

Reestablishing poverty and hunger once it's been ended.

I'm not sure why you're asking what appears to be a legal question on a science board. Causally, it's a chain of events in which all individual links are of equal necessity for that specific outcome to occur. Legally, though, you'd probably have to "blame" the person who contrived this whole thing with the intent to cause harm.