Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 96. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Is psychology considered science on /sci/ or would you guys say its more of a humanities/social study?
>>8119505
It's a science all right; it just severely lacks the rigor of natural sciences like biology, chemistry and physics, leading to a large percentage of irreplicable results, which in turn makes /sci/ hate it.
That said, I do think there is a (very) small number of psychfags here, so you might get an answer if you post a question and ignore the "psychology isn't science" posts that will inevitably come.
>>8119509
Psychology has many fields which differ in their techniques. You could say that social/cultural psychology is a social science, but you can't say that for biopsychology or cognitive pshycology.
Still, I think there is a difference between even the "hardest" field of psychology and chemistry, for example.
>>8119505
>subjective
>non-reproducible
>non-measurable
Sure, it's science bro.
How do you justify contributing to humanity?
What reason do you have that you want to propel humanity towards more power or capability?
I find it extremely hard to justify contributing to a "general good" versus taking an extremely selfish approach to things.
For instance why does Elon Musk sleep on the assembly line when he can just cash out his money and do anything he wants? He is logical enough to understand that his work is pointless ultimately.
>>8119204
>justify contributing
wat
>>8119204
how is this even remotely a /sci/ topic?
>>8119210
Scientists are relatively the least paid in comparison to contribution to society. Why would you wish to help humanity at self-expense.
Are insects advanced enough to feel emotions and empathize with other members of their species? I've heard many people say insects are like organic robots which have no thoughts and feel no emotion. But that would mean that insects are no more advanced than bacteria, which can't be true. Is there any consensus in the scientific community about how advanced insects are?
>>8118797
God gave them a complex social life - it doesn't work the same way it works in mammals but there's a pleasure in their life and there are some sorts of emotions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFilNsLUvT0
All forms of life in the state God made them cherish life.
>>8118797
>insects are like organic robots
same as other animals
It is generally discouraged to think of organisms as more or less advanced because we tend to define advanced as "human like" (e.g. having emotion and empathy, complex body form and various tissue types). But all these things are just adaptations to very unique niches. Some are newer than others, but all organisms alive today are here because they are adapted to their niche. Emotion and empathy are just adaptations unique to vertebrates, and likely arose due to a combination of traits and selection unique to some of these organisms'(our) history.
In short...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Thoughts on psychiatry? Not psychology, but psychiatry?
Diagnosing people as mad has more to do with social control than therapy. Many of those labeled as schizophrenic, bipolar, and other kinds of "mad" are not ill. ... They are seeing and feeling what is wrong with society and what needs to be done to change it.
>noble lunatic meme
>>8132809
>Found the schizo Scientologist
Would a grey goo scenario be possible?
I think the guy who coined that said he was just being paranoid or something like that.
>>8132260
But he have good reasons for tho, these are tiny machines that consume and devour all matters, effectively making it an even more dangerous form of a pandemic. A literal devourer of worlds
Honestly I would shat my pants straight instead of simple paranoia
waste heat
What does /sci/ think of the new names?
>Nihonium
>Muscovium - I called this one :^)
>Tennessine
>Oganesson
>Nihonium
>>8131946
First blush: I like them, nice mix of place names and some dude's name.
I also love that the row is officially done now, in the most important sense. They should declare chemistry to be over and not look for anything higher, so as not to screw up the table.
>>8131977
>not look for anything higher
There's still the island of stability to look forward to
What are some good no-bullshit meditation regimens?
Experiencing tranquility.
>>8116078
Meditation isn't necessarily good, in my experience at least; it can potentiated latent psychological. In my case: depersonalization, depression, suicidal thoughts and extreme anxiety.
That being said it can be beneficial. Just focus on your breathing and try not to think in words for 10-30 when ever you find time in the day. You'll know you're meditating when you realize you are experiencing strange phenomena and and occasional vivid visions, but when you realize that you'll break meditation....
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8116195
after glancing over what I just posted, I think it may have made me retarded as well.
Post textbooks for your field of studies or recommend textbooks to others.
Other thread will 404 soon.
atkins, jones & laverman - chemical principles: the quest for insight
8/10 for learning the basics
![ashlee_vance_elon_musk_1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oYQFwvY.jpg "ashlee_vance_elon_musk_1[1].jpg")
> We're probably not living in "base reality"
Elon Musk believes that the reality we live in is a simulation, and we're not living in the actual world.
http://www.popsci.com/elon-musk-says-we-could-be-simulation
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11837608/elon-musk-simulation-argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8
Where is your god now /sci/ ?
OJ Simpson was great at football.
>>8125732
A retarded opinion is retarded regardless of the person who holds it
>smart theoretical physicists and computer scientists make a claim
>no one listens
>billionaire recites the argument in a butchered janky way that makes no sense
>aspies cant stop talking about it
If you want to be a successful scientist, question the validity of your source.
The madman is actually going to do it
>>8117199
Nah.
>listening to a what a company says
Lel. As much as Muskfags hate to admit it NASA is the best and only shot.
first it was 2004, then 2008, then 2015, then 2017, then 2018, now 2025.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TAuxqkT.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
Uh, how safe are these things really?
Seems like a pebble could fuck your shit up, am i right?
>>8128113
>Be moving at same speed as pebbles = no problem
>Pebbles move counter clockwise = PepsiMax
It's like made of kevlar m8. Honestly we don't know what it is made of, but it meets NASA's safety standards
>>8128120
its made of post-its
Are vectors entities that can only be described in retangular coordinates? I mean, can i write a vector like pic related? If so, can I work with them like normal vectors? It looks weird to me because units dont match... anyway thanks
>>8129288
yes
>>8129288
>Are vectors entities that can only be described in retangular coordinates?
No.
>>8129318
my answer was for your second question
What do?
multi-track drifting
>>8118943
It solves so many problems.
What is /sci/s opinions on flying cars? I think it's a good idea because driving across a major city takes like an hour when it's just 20 miles which you could have flown in 10 minutes. If I had a flying car I could have applied to more universities than one. Also in places like the Amazon where there are no roads your choice is a week of battling through mud and crocodiles or a £300,000 helicopter and the £30 an hour pilot to fly it. Imagine if you could just hop into a £10,000 flying car and have it fly itself to your destination?
>normies navigating 3d space
Unlike most of /sci/ I enjoy being alive.
>>8121932
I mean, there's a lot less to crash into in the sky.
That is, of course, until it's filled with idiots flying in cars.
As I see it the hardest thing would be not being able to restrict people's movement in the way roads do, leading to a potential shitfest and danger for all.
...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
How come eugenics didn't work out?
As far as I know it has been practiced earlier and way more intensely in the United States than in Nazi Germany, yet (no offense) Americans don't seem that much smarter or overall more superior. And in case someone will come with the argument that minorities are driving down the average scores of the country, even if you single out white Americans they aren't really that smart alone either. European countries where eugenics haven't been practiced like Finland, Netherlands or Switzerland have a higher average IQ than the...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8121473
Nice timing, OP.
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/02/after-secret-harvard-meeting-scientists-publish-proposal-to-create-synthetic-human-genomes/
>>8121476
Aha.. This has nothing to do with eugenics
>>8121476
beat me to it.
Although this meeting isn't about eugenics, it's only a matter of time before we start up on eugenics programs again. Unfortunately, thanks to Hitler's stupidity, he set back projects like these lots of years back for the West. The Chinese will make it first.
The reason eugenics didn't work out is because crossing smart people doesn't guarantee the offspring will be smart, because of variation, and because of nurture. IQ is malleable, and the way someone grows up...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
