>most posters completely clueless in their subject
>cücks
>homework threads every thirty minutes
>university threads
>job threads
why is this board so bad bros?
>>7679164
>>university threads
>>job threads
nothing wrong with that
why do you think they have career fairs, seminars, etc at unis? its important
>>7679164
>homework threads every thirty minutes
and when i come to sci to seek assistance on a real problem that i have found on my free time i get no answers, ever
you guys all suck dragon dicks
>>7679164
Posting facts and logic here, DOES fix what's wrong. The problem is IGNORANCE. (The added problem is STUPIDITY, but you can't fix that.) The fix is POSTING.
>>7679171
i think this board should try to discuss science, not the meta stuff that we all have to deal with to pursue it. that's stuff you ask parents or guidance counselors or whoever. i love 4chan culture, and anonymity. i wish this was a place where we talked about the stuff that matters.
>>7679179
thank you
>>7679164
Why the fuck did you put an umlaut on keks?
Unless it's a wordfilter or something.
In which case top cück
>>7679183
you may not know what you want to do until you hear someone talking about what they do. if /sci/ wasnt a bunch of retards and actually had people that worked at national labs or something, there would be good threads about jobs, what theyre looking for, etc.
and the avg quality of poster here is utterly incapable of discussing science in the first place
>>7679188
that's exactly why i don't like those threads....maybe if this board had better discussion, with a diverse group of people, more experts would stick around.
>>7679164
You're on 4chan. Shitposting is literally the whole point. If you have an actual science question there are lots of places you can go.
>>7679197
then again maybe it'll just a matter of time...
>>7679200
ummm ever heard of on topic shitposting?
>>7679200
4chan and 4chan are different things
there are lots of quality boards not plagued by debili and le ebin trollors who shitpost
>>7679164
The problem is that the reasonable people on /sci/ always engage with the dumb retards posting stupid pseudo-science and poorly thought out scify bullshit. These threads are the ones with the most replies even if those replies are just people shitting on the OP. However, actual reasonable threads like "what is /sci/ currently researching" get almost no attention because there's not enough drama.
/sci/ is dumb because the smart posters lower themselves to the level of retards when they are here.
>>7679164
MATH CAPTCHAS
>>7679213
not a bad idea desu
Purdue nukefag used to make threads and answer questions about physics, radiation, nuclear power, etc. but he hasn't made any threads like that in a while. They were usually pretty great.
>>7679164
I don't dislike university and jobs threads, if you want to have more educated and experienced people on this board it is a good idea to help those who still aren't.
If you want to discuss something in particular, make a thread about that instead of waiting for other to do that. Sometimes there are good threads with discussions worthy to be carried out; they are rare, but they wouldn't exist at all if someone didn't bother to create them in the first place.
Also, this kind of meta-threads complaining about how bad /sci/ is is the worst.
tl;dr: stop being a whiny bitch and start discussions you would like to participate in
>>7679204
>there are lots of quality boards not plagued by debili and le ebin trollors who shitpost
Name one.
>>7679172
>>>7679121
>>>7679127
Feel free to help me out bro
>>7679164
>>cücks
You are part of the problem.
Aside from that, better moderation and some more traffic would be nice.
>>7679200
>it's normal it's 4chan
no no I browse absolute cesspits of 4chan and this board is by far the worst. Hostile atmosphere, nobody has a clue about the actual board topic, constant ego-stroking.
>>7679245
/diy/ is very good. I am /diy/ I only come here because they don't do maths yet whenever I try discussing a project on here it gets attacked as "babby tier" or "it will never work"
>>7679230
University and jobs threads are cancer, it's all "I got into a better university than you" "I make more money than you" "my course is harder than yours".
>>7679267
This. If you want people to stop shitposting you should probably stop too.
The main problem with /sci/ is the shitposting but on top of that pretty much everyone here is a high schooler or an undergrad (and most of the undergrads here are either freshmen or sophomores) so you're not gonna avoid university/job threads and you won't get the most amazing discussion. Look at it this way, at least we're better than /biz/.
>>7679273
>/diy/ is very good. I am /diy/ I only come here because they don't do maths yet whenever I try discussing a project on here it gets attacked as "babby tier" or "it will never work"
hello same boat anon
bc people here rather talk about how to get work, instead of doing work by talking here.
/sci/ is beyond repair mostly due to the fact that the only people who come on here anymore have "science questions" and can provide no answers, /sch/ was fucked the second the ratio between these two types of posts was violated now we have a bunch of /b/ and /pol/ assholes looking to "learn cool factoids!"
They should make the captchas integrals, dumbasses will lose interest and stop posting
>>7679164
Isn't keks unfiltered yet?
>>7679273
Because that fucking "derivation" of yours where you got wrong pressure gradient for a rotor was retarded based on your misunderstanding of the math and you refused to take our advice to study fluid mechanics instead insisting your shitty AP physics background was enough.
Your ideas aren't attacked because we're trying to bully you, they're attacked because they're wrong.
>>7679208
I don't think the "smart posters" respond to shit like pic related. It's the inbetween posters, those who aren't completely retard popsci faggots, but who aren't un-baitable well-read science-patrician master race. The problem being, in my opinion, that we don't have enough of this master race to create threads which get good discussion.
I saw a thread the other day about microtubule polarization in neurons, and the people who replied to it were talking about high-school tier action potentials. Action potentials had nothing to do with the microtubules (as far as I am aware), but everyone just wants to add their 2cents and feel good about themselves; even if they are being complete fragile-X syndrome (IQ 40) tier retards
>>7679489
>fucking wrong picture
>posts the same pic
the smart people of /sci/ everyone
Daily threads exposing shitposting etc
Make it clear that there is shitpost here. Then wait for moderation + community to react on it. If shitposting here is allowed here, all users lose most of their time and energy. Lies, confusion, jokes should not be allowed. The user's experience most be of science and logic, not something else.
>>7679492
> implying you've never fucked up a post
Stop being such an autistic faggot anon.
>>7679508
Daily "Wall of Shame General"s to expose shitposts? Perhaps we can create an elitist environment whereby pop-sci shitposters don't want to waste time creating or responding to threads and getting BTFO
/sci/ is dead. The mods even used a larger font for the sticky, but half the catalog is still career/university shit spam by people who are too retarded to use google and thus will never get a degree anyway, let alone ever contribute to science. And don't get me started on all the uneducated scifi and pop sci reddit manchildren shitting up the board.
Newfag here. I know that I don't know much, and am a complete amature. So I simply don't post much. I mainly come here to learn / hear about some science news occasionally. Plus some interesting discussions. I just wish the same questions wouldn't get asked as frequently as they do.
This post has become all
ME ME ME ME ME
I AM INSECURE
MUH IQ
MATH CONTAINS PHYSICS CONTANINS CHEMISTRY CONTAINS BIOLOGY HURR DURR WHAT IS A DISCIPLINE
I wish there was a nice imageboard for having intelligent discussion about scientific topics.
>>7679517
>autistic faggot
>>7679544
That picture gave cancer anon.
>>7679508
Jokes can be nice if they're educated and not blatant shitposting even a gay engineer thread now and then didn't ruin much.
>>7679361
>reddit style posters
You mean people who answer science questions correctly and are generally nice to each other?
>choke on a Calc III hour exam at CC
>grade would've been a low A, dropped to a C because I fucking biffed two of the most basic problems
>prof makes a comment to us about slackers never actually doing anything in life
>>7679183
this whole thread is meta you dumb head.
>>7679164
>Increase the ban length from a few days to several months but institute a ban appeal system where users can appeal their ban by submitting a correct proof to a non-trivial math problem (some basic category theory should do the trick).
>autobahn /pol/ users.
>move pop-sci and other retarded shit to /trash/.
>ban social sciences and other pseudosciences.
There, fixed.
>taking anything in real life this seriously
>>7679629
No I said reddit posters
>>7679544
>He thinks the sticky ever mattered
I didn't even notice it until you mentioned it. Pretty sure most people use the catalog with last reply sorting or whatever
>>7679208
>The problem is that /sci/ is filled with shit posters who think they know what they are talking about, and think no one else does because everyone is are retards and shitposters.
FTFY
>>7679491
So what you are saying, /sci/ is just science oriented /pol/.
Makes perfect sense.
>>7680339
/pol/ is literally a containment board for stormfront retards.
>>7680339
> omg i hate /pol/ and ill keep spamming it
We also need an auto-ban for these retards who keep derailing threads with their off-topic gb2/pol/ flooding. Every thread about genetics gets stormed by sjw nazis to shut down any discussion.
>>7680345
>thread about race = thread about genetics
Get a load of this retard.
It's /pol/ that constantly derails threads with race shit from the 50's.
>>7680350
nope, its normal people stating facts which you desperately try to stereotype as neo-nazis to shit in every thread. People who do this and try to police threads needs week-long bans.
>>7680345
You have to expect SJWs to kill all genetic discussions. SJW ideology is based on all humans are identical, and it is only how they are treated by society that determines who they are. Science has proven that genetics determines the basic frame that houses the human intellect, that automatically disproves the SJW basic premise in that some human genetics will make certain frames more resistant to some issues and more vulnerable to others. In other words, the science of genetics long ago destroyed SJW claims that all humans are equal and interchangeable, and the more people that know that, the less people will respect the SJW and their claims and causes.
>>7680363
I'm not doubting that for sure. You have to be a special kind of retard if you believe everyone on earth have identical intelligence, mental capacity, linguistic and congnitive development etc... But the problem is the use of constant off-topic replies and flooding. I usually have no problem for sjw to be here as long as they can respect the dialogue within a scientific frame, but they can't
>>7680356
>facts
The closest any /pol/ users come to posting "facts" is posting social science research that uses the social definition for race (i.e. the one that tells us race is a social construct).
Unfortunately dumb social science shit like that is literally on the same level as women's studies (it's retarded).
>>7680363
Nice stickman. The only qualm is that traditional races don't exist. Humans are different but their differences are studied according to populations (i.e. in population genetics). Also phenotypes is not a sufficient method of classifying humans into groups because of convergent evolution. Furthermore, it's proven pretty much impossible to formalize the notion of traditional races, hence why we work with the more abstract notion of populations.
You two are examples of retards who only know pop-science.
This board is shit because there's a greater proportion of popscifags asking science questions than there are people studying these disciplines. Unfortunately some of these popscifags have stuck around. They are typically from /pol/ and/or are underaged.
This has been going on for years and now /sci/ is dead.
I don't know how to change things except by making more quality posts that requires posters to have a solid knowledge of the subject material to respond. If we keep it vague and general for normalfags to understand, then they'll think they have the right to make a dumbass opinion.
Also all uni and career threads should really go on /adv/ unless it's very related to /sci/ in some way, like a famous researcher gave a talk at your uni.
We need to make /sci/ better because /sci/ reflects its userbase. We need to up the quality and difficulty of our posts to aver the fags who come here to ask stupid questions like "if the sky was green what would happen to the moon"
>>7680369
You are an example of what's wrong with /sci/. You are the cancer destroying any science discussion here. Congrats.
>>7680378
This.
>>7680378
I'm assuming by uni you mean advice related to it.
I'm curious, where do you stand on postgrad/TA and academia threads in general? Personally I think it draws back some researchers in disparate fields to the normal physics/math/engineering such as specialties in biology etc. because it's something they can actually related and it often leads to interesting /sci/ related research discussions that would otherwise not have happened. It's more of a 3rd place for highly specialized researchers who don't really have many other people or friends in real life (your adviser doesn't count) to talk to than it is actually /sci/ though. But threads can often lead to more detailed discussions of research and textbook recs etc.
I know these threads are often discouraged, but I'm not sure if it's just the pop-sci crowd or if others feel the same way.
>>7680392
I suppose threads on academia should be allowed. When I refer to uni/career threads, I'm talking about those /soc/-tier threads where people post their major and their uni or those threads where people say "should I major in this or that? tell me job prospects"
>>7680386
No one was arguing stormfag versus SJW wars. Just discussing that it is a shame that genetic discussions here attract SJW. Replier then whips out his genetic penis and then calls the two posters retards. That "I know shit about subject, everyone else is retards" is the EXACT behavior being discussed as the cancer killing this place. That and the stuff that should be in /adv/.
Also--- everyone on this board is going to be a popsci retard. We all are only going to truly know our fields in depth. But we are going to be interested in other fields, otherwise we wouldn't be on the board. So picking on the popsci discussions is just being hostile not only to the "plebs", but to the educated and professional fellows who are just interested in something beyond their expertise.
>>7679188
I used to work at a natty lab (not US though), I don't know why you would assume there isn't any people who are further along in their career. There is a of course a much higher proportion of HS and undergrads, but still we do have many diverse people. We even had an old arctic explorer here at some point.
>>7680392
I'm not that guy but I'm pretty sure that rule was introduced because back in the early days of /sci/ we would get daily threads where anons would ask shit like "what should I major in?" or "what university should I apply to?".
I think these threads are fine as long as they fall into the "water cooler" category.
>>7680398
>No one was arguing stormfag versus SJW wars.
I see you are also illiterate. Refer to:
>>7680339
Calling out retards is basically 90% of what /sci/ does.
>>7680398
No man. Genetic discussions attract both the stormfags and SJWs. If you don't think /pol/ starts or participates a big deal in those threads, then either you're from /pol/ or you're just oblivious.
>That "I know shit about subject, everyone else is retards" is the EXACT behavior being discussed as the cancer killing this place
Fuck off. We need people who know their shit. Not fucking pseuds who pretend like they're experts and mouth off retarded opinions. If you're ignorant about something, just lurk.
>everyone on this board is going to be a popsci retard
That's not true. Many of us have very solid knowledge in our major field and pretty solid knowledge of other fields. If you read major journals, you'll have basic ideas down and know where the research is going. If you don't read major journals, then you're pretty much a popscifag.
Once again, if you don't know shit, just let people who do know shit talk about it and you can ask questions that are completely retarded like "frozen sun + sun=?"
>>7680404
meant
>aren't completely retarded
>>7679164
institute a 4chan wide policy where anyone who has posted on /pol/ in the last 90 days has their posts on other boards publicly flagged with a big /pol/tard identifier
>>7680406
THIS!
>>7680406
Make it a yellow star please.
>>7680406
> sjw thinks people will take them seriously
SJW is globally hated. we need any politically correct fascist to be banished from 4chan forever.
This is a discussion board, not a kindergarden, fuck off back to your hugbox.
>>7679188
>if /sci/ wasnt a bunch of retards and actually had people that worked at national labs or something
There's a SpaceX fag who I've seen post on /sci/ before and he actually takes time to answer general questions about the industry, he's posted in the current Elon thread.
Inevitably, the threads turn into NASA vs SpaceX vs ULA bullshit by anons who don't even work at any of those places or >muh gov't subsidies and he kinda disappears.
>>7679219
Yep, that guy was cool. His threads would get shit up by retards as well.
If I worked someplace cool I don't think I'd have the patience to post here with all the retards, its quite sad.
I also feel like not enough anons engage in good threads or threads with experts/people with experience and even though many of us might be silently enjoying the thread it gets taken over by retards since we don't post enough.
>>7680412
Found the triggered /pol/tard.
SJWs and you are birds of a feather. They whine about stupid shit and you whine about stupid shit.
Do that on /pol/. This place is for science and mathematics.
>>7680412
nobody likes tumblr SJWs but stormfags from /pol/ are just as bad if not worse
>>7680415
Tell that to the people who put political correctness above science. No matter how much I agree that SJW and /pol/ are the extreme ends of the autism spectrum.
>>7680418
Who does that here?
>>7680417
Black people here call each other N word as well. If you don't see the hypocracy in stereotyping all of them as nazis like you fucking know the identity of the poster or something, you are a retarded sjw-poster
>>7680406
lol, there's an anon who was collecting statistics on 4chan by using the API. Several months ago he posted a bunch of his stats and they showed that /pol/ is by far the most mentioned board throughout the entire site (due to people saying gb2/pol/). The discussion revolved around how the more cancerous/hated boards on the site seemed to be mentioned the most. Moot posted in that thread and the very next day he rigged the /pol/ board with all of that kekolding stuff.
Someone should've suggested that idea then.
>>7679164
/sci/'s front page right now:
>Meta thread
>Turing machine
>/lit/ and /his/ propoganda thread
>Retard whining about not getting into grad-school
>Programming thread that belongs on /g/
>/b/ tier bear wrestling thread
>Health advice thread.
>Pop geophysics thread - sort of.
>IQ thread
>Bait thread about some video
>Another /lit/ propaganda thread
>Another /b/ thread
>Markov chain discussion
>"I'm no scientist, but " crackpot thread.
Clearly most of the off topic shitposting are from people outside /sci/ who come here with their bullshit thinking some wizard will give them answers to their off topic crap or simply to bait.
This knock off actual /sci/ threads. The problem is that the core /sci/ community has become overrun with filthy crossboarders and janitors aren't deleting these either because they are understaffed or because we don't report them enough.
What we need is generals
>not wait don't leave, here me out!
, if we had more on-topic generals with active discussion this would bump the on-topic threads so /sci/-core individuals don't leave after glancing the front page. O-chem general is a perfect example of this. As are research thread generals, the /sqt/ and textbook thread generals etc. If we keep actively bumping these people will eventually post specialized questions in relevant threads instead of making new threads that die quickly because no one who could answer him happened to be online at the time and it got knocked off by all the shit from crossboarders.
>>7680406
>/pol/ is the problem.
It's not, people can have conservative opinions without ever having heard about /pol/.
If anything the off-topic over reactions and pseudo scientism retards are much much worse.
>>7680424
Are you that stupid that you don't have any semblance of reading comprehension?
It's not that you say nigger. It's that you have to say it over and over again in threads where it doesn't matter like obnoxious SJWs and feminists whining about shit.
You have to shoehorn your stupid politics and ideology into everything. Just fuck off and whine about that stuff on /pol/. We just want to discuss actual things here. If you're not smart enough for that, then lurk moar.
>>7680431
>implying conservative = retarded.
/pol/ has retarded opinions, it is the problem.
>>7680404
>>everyone on this board is going to be a popsci retard
>That's not true. Many of us have very solid knowledge in our major field and pretty solid knowledge of other fields. If you read major journals, you'll have basic ideas down and know where the research is going. If you don't read major journals, then you're pretty much a popscifag.
It is. /sci/ has a bad habit of poster whipping out their virtual penis on a subject and insulting all other posters because dick flasher thinks they know their shit and other poster just reads a few journals or worse--- PopSci. This board might well word filter popsci to jews and be done with it. At the moment, it is still slightly nicer than /pol/, but it is sliding down that hole. Makes it less and less worth my time to come by and check out the few interesting threads, because the threads themselves are dieing from it.
Political correctness is revolved around censoring opinions that may be offensive to certain group of people. Although this excludes white people for fuck knows why. And science is incompatible with a system which will censor it based on some arbitrary feelings of other people.
>>7680434
> talking about the intelligence difference among races is politics
Yeah, this is why you're an imbecile.
>>7680427
I think generals are a good idea as well frankly. I participate in the Orgo thread and it has some good discussions from time to time.
>>7680431
You can have conservative opinions, sure. What does that have to do with the KDM5A gene though? Stop putting your politics into everything. It's fucking annoying and offtopic.
>>7680435
> my opinions are better than your opinions and other peoples opinions are retarded
back to >>>/sjw/
>>7679544
>>7679544
>talks about qm without knowing the math
holy shit i thought i was the only one who this triggered
guy I know didn't even know the difference between > and < but was trying to tell me that he "loved studying string theory and quantum physics"
another dude who was failing this calc 3 class I was in kept trying to talk to me about neutron stars, black holes and cosmology
i really need to stop handling these plebs with kid gloves, but I'm too nice to call them out
>>7680436
Right now it's like that because we have a bunch of crossboarders and underage fags, but there are some of us who actually major in STEM and care about the disciplines we study.
If we up the quality of our convo and have more intelligent discourses that fly over the head of popscifags, they'll leave this board.
>>7680425
And all the boards suffered from Moot doing that as /pol/ got butthurt and took all their worst discussions to all the other boards. Which defeated the purpose of /pol/ being a containment board for the worst of /b/ discussions.
>>7680437
>talking about the intelligence difference among races is politics
Nice strawman and reading comprehension. And when you guys talk about racial differences, you usually bring outdated or social science research to the table. Regardless, /pol/tards don't just make it a discussion about the research but instead talk about "annihilating these subhumans to save mankind" and then you fucks do crusader roleplay or some shit.
>>7680417
> /pol/ makes their political opinions obvious everywhere.
Some fucked up view of "political opinions" you got there. If I say white people are better than black people, I'm sure you would refer me to /pol/. What if I say black people are better than white people, where would you refer me to then ? Considering it's just as a political opinion as saying it the other way around.
>>7680452
Then go to tumblr
>>7680449
> god created all men equal
Here we go again with this shit. And no, only a few trolls among /pol/ and some wannabe redditors say that to trigger retards like you. Other than that we always have decent discussion until some of you start sperging "GB2POLxD" or "RACE WAR NOW"
>>7679544
whats the problem with gödel escher bach?
>>7680454
tumblr isn't dedicated to black people, maybe for fat people and beta males. it would be more like worldstarhiphop.com where people can talk all about their white hatred and evil white nazis memes
>>7680452
>What if I say black people are better than white people, where would you refer me to then ?
>>>/pol/
This isn't the fucking board, retard.
Do /pol/tards even understand that constantly shoehorning your faggy little identity politics into unrelated topics is a GREAT way to make people actually disregard all of your ideas completely?
>>7680457
Once again strawman and reading comprehension. Nowhere did I use the word "god" or say that people are born equal. I don't believe in tabula rasa shit.
Are you an idiot or something?
In those threads, the convo devolves always to talking about genocide or how individuals are inferior and should be corralled. I don't care what your political opinions are. That has nothing to do with the research.
>>7680459
It's pleb shit. You should just read Godel from the source.
>>7680462
> always
you mean rarely. Also yeah, whats the difference between your view of "all races are identical in every aspect including intellgence" and "god created all men equal". You're all the same idiots.
>>7680457
you are such a fucking idiot. try to learn how to read before you come to this board.
>>>/trash/
>>7680461
> talking about race is okay
> talking about racial differences is identity politics and a nezo-nazi agenda
found the sjw-poster
>>7680466
Do you not know what tabula rasa means? Are you really that dumb?
>>7680467
> gets buttmad when people recite their worldviews
funny
>>7680469
no, qausi-scientific "racial discussion" is not science and belongs on /pol/, not /sci/
Well this thread has proven how stupid /pol/ posters are.
Fuck off. If you don't study science, leave or lurk. You're too dumb to make a worthwhile statement or argument.
And I agree we need generals.
>>7680473
Who are you quoting?
>>7680469
>found the sjw-poster
That isn't much of a game around here any more.
Can we just start a few general threads and nuke this thread from orbit now?
You know what might improve this board? Identity numbers and being able to add them to ignore. Then people can just set all the race baiters and popsci posters into their kill poster list, and enjoy the remaining signal.
>>7680478
That would stop being 4chan though. one reason people can express their opinions is because they don't have identities.
>>7680478
I seriously think IDs would be good for this board. And generals will definitely improve the place like the orgo general has done with the subject.
>>7680482
/pol/ has IDs. You would be familiar with that, wouldn't you?
>>7680482
This is the only place where some of the dregs of the internet can post without being doxxed and banned, you mean.
>>7680440
>Stop putting your politics into everything. It's fucking annoying and offtopic.
That's precisely my point. Guess who started pushing their politics into science in the first place? You didn't have a problem with that because they were your political views, but now you have a problem that right wings are doing the same thing. A lot of the leftist nonsense constantly pushed is exactly as bad as far right, they are more dangerous in fact because scientism popsci fanboys actually believe their bullshit with a science themed coating is "scientific fact" because they first read about it in some biased source and if someone tries to call them on their bullshit that you didn't condemn before and you have no right to shout /pol/.
People shouldn't be allowed to spout any garbage they want just because they believe their side of the political spectrum. That is why anyone who tries to imply "the problem is /pol/" or "the problem is SJWs" is the problem. This isn't just a /sci/ issue, it has real life consequences and pushing politics into science needs to end.
The other problem is that you think these people don't have a STEM background. They do, both sides of the spectrum have researchers and qualifications in every field posting here. There are people who have read all the latest studies, but neither side wants to admit most controversial issues have contradictory evidence and science doesn't actually provide a definitive answer yet. So the actual debates are emotionally fueled with both sides pretending to understand an issue that we fundamentally don't have precise answers to. I mean, Chirst, a lot of the crap on /sci/ is more intelligent and objective than the more retarded polemics and editorials that are published in journals nowadays.
It's an issue, it doesn't belong on /sci/, but you will not get rid of it by denouncing it as "/pol/" or "SJW" and thinking one side will just magically back down. [cont]
>>7680487
they're temporary IDs. its just to tell who you're replying in the same thread
>>7680491
Especially not if an unsubstantiated opinion from one side is allowed to be left standing.
We need to outright ban any political discussion, not just one side of it.
Furhtermore, I maintain that we should increase the character limit of /sci/ posts to 4000.
>>7680482
The ID would just apply to /sci/. But yes, it would destroy the complete anonymity of this board. We still wouldn't know each other, but we could filter the race monger and feeling mongers out. The only danger is filtering out someone that really knows there stuff on a subject you like because it turns out they also like to shitpost on another subject you like.
>>7679164
Make posting the words "/pol/tard", "SJW" or "libtard" a banable offense.
You guys are seriously cancer and need to fuck off.
>>7680495
I agree. Political shit doesn't belong here at all.
>>7680479
This post reeks of underage.
>>7680495
Theres a problem with what people try to make as "political discussion" though. Like talking about the different SAT scores that people from different races are simply stating facts but sjwtards are tryin to make it look like a hidden agenda even though it's simply stating facts.
>>7680479
>racial science
go find a department of "racial science" at any modern, reputable university
hint: you won't because its not science
>>7680497
Little known fact that /pol/ and sjw are actually best friends. They conduct these epic internet battles to simply stir shit up.
>>7680501
You know what. You guys should just go to /his/.
/his/ is a social science board and racial science is a social science.
>>7680503
Talking about the genetic, physical and biological differences among races is what you call "racial science", which belong to no other board but /sci/
>>7680501
The problem is that in said studies race is measured through self-identification. That means you are using the social construct notion of a race which is appropriate given that this is social science.
The only people who think that social science gives "facts" are retards who can't into basic statistics and empiricism (i.e. basic science).
What is it like being brain damaged?
>>7680506
This. If the study uses the social construction of "race", then it should be on /his/. If it has to do with genetics, then it can stay here.
>>7680507
"Racial science" is at best a social science because race can only be defined socially (hence social construct). This belongs in either /lit/ or /x/.
>>7680505
It's sharing information about the success of races and their ranking. It's a discussion board and people can discuss these without having to justify how they add something.
>>7680514
>/lit/
/lit/ is for literature discussion.
>/x/
/x/ is conspiracy shit.
/his/ is the best place for it. It's a humanities and social science board.
>>7680513
This. Any modern research to do with genetics falls under the category of population genetics, not "racial science". You can immediately identify the pop-sci retards who can't into science this way.
>>7680514
> race can only be defined socially
> DNA evidence can identify ethnicity of people from simple samples.
oh god...
>>7680515
>It's a discussion board and people can discuss these without having to justify how they add something.
ergo, it doesn't add anything to the board and is not science.
>>7680520
>what is population genetics
Talk about biology and genetics here. If it's social shit like SAT scores and IQ, then fuck off to /his/.
>>7680521
It adds to the other person who's wondering about these things. And if you weren't such a hypocrite shitposter, you would go around asking the same questions to %90 of the threads on /sci/ which are essentially retarded google questions or STEM wars or any other repetitive shit that adds absolutely nothing to this board. But you don't, so stop trying.
>>7680520
Ethnicity is even more socially defined than race since it's literally just culture. Again it's self-identified.
DNA is not used to define ethnicity.
>>7680523
> intelligence quotient is social
nice meme
>>7680530
Yeah it is. Intelligence is based on biology but measures of intelligence are sociological.
If it uses the measures to talk about something genetic, then it's science. If it doesn't, then it's sociology and social science.
That goes on /his/.
>>7680501
You don't understand what I'm saying.
The "sjwtards" you're referring to will always call you out whenever you post racial SAT scores statistics. Just like you will always call them out in whatever you were replying to with the stats in the first place. What looks radically incorrect to one looks like fact to the other, the answer to the original question of most of these threads in something in between the answer is that we don't have an answer yet (which is also what makes this shit popular to normies since it requires less STEM background and can be argued with emotion). The only to stop these annoying bump limit threads from developing is to ban political discussions outright. That includes politics with vague scientific connections like discussing green tech lobbyists etc.
You could both have PhDs and faculty positions in Physics for all I care, but your specific posts leading to any situation where you are even discussing SAT scores or race in the first place is not /sci/ core. Sociology is not a science and as other posters have suggested you can take it to /his/.
>>7680528
> DNA is not used to define ethnicity.
You're starting to sound more and more like a typical illiterate sjw dweller
http://dna.ancestry.com/ethnicity/
>>7680514
See posts like this are what I'm talking about.
You are just fucking asking for it, more responses to vague assertions.
It's defined and used in medicine, genetics and many other fields too. You are guessing and trying to establish your political opinion as fact.
Both of you need to shut the fuck up.
>>7680532
> then it's sociology and social science. That goes on /his/.
/his/ is for history, you can read from it's title. Social SCIENCE belongs to a science board. This doesn't require further discussion since the board definitions clearly state what belongs to where.
>>7680534
>ancestry.com
>>>/trash/
You're looking for the term "haplogroups".
Read these studies:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7422/abs/nature11632.html
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1753-6561/5/S2/S11
>>7680539
/his/ - History & Humanities
Social "science" is a humanities field.
>>7680539
Fuck off. /his/ is for history and humanities. Social science belongs there.
Social science is not a science and if you think so then you're a fucking newfag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
Can everyone stop baiting now pls? It's embarrassing.
>>7680541
They can tell your ethnic roots way back to your ancestors, which you denied. I don't know why you keep trying to misinterpret the basic premise of what they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdpuGIZfR90
>>7680526
Have you ever 4Chan? Most boards discussions amount to retarded Google questions or (board subject) wars with repetitive shit.
If you read this thread, you might have noticed how /sci/ posters were trying to determine why there is little /sci/ worthy threads and posts here and what actions to take to correct that. Discussing race studies and related topics are not on the action list on how to raise the amount of interesting /sci/ threads and posts here.
>>7680545
I wasn't the guy who made that post and the fact that you're linking to ancestry.com means that you're a popscifag and a newfag.
Like I said you're looking for the term "HAPLOGROUPS", you troglodyte.
Read the papers I linked before you start acting like an expert because it's obvious that you're really dumb.
>>7680543
> /his/ is for history and humanities
And if you visited there, you would see this : "For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago."
Which means you can't talk about current SAT scores of different ethnic groups.
> social science is not a science
Fucks sake come back when you make some sense.
>>7680550
Social science is not historical. Humanities subjects and philosophers are talked about on /his/ who are still current and alive.
>social science is a science
Take a look at this newfag.
>>7680549
You are trying to make a case as haplogroups are not related to ethnic compositions or race. I don't know if you're trolling or just trying too hard to look stupid
>>7680546
I'm more scientifically literate than you m8. I thought giving people some kind of source for the terms they are using might diffuse the argument, apparently not.
>social sciences are not science!
undergrad filth detected
>The last 20 or so posts ITT
/sci/ is too autistic. It can't be saved.
>>7680551
Why do they call it social science and why is it thought in schools as social science then mr expert ?
>>7680534
>ancestry.com
I lol'd.
Allow me to dumb this down for you. An ethnic group is defined (vaguely) culturally to be a group that exhibits the same cultural identity with regards to music, cuisine, clothing, etc... Your claim is that with some degree of variability one can use DNA to identify ethnicity, and that this is sufficient to establish the claim that ethnicity is genetic. However, since part of ethnicity is musical taste then one could also infer that DNA can be used to identify musical taste. Does this mean that musical taste is genetic?
eg. is there a set of genes that produce a set of proteins that cause individuals to really like reggaeton music? No, that is retarded. You are a retard.
>>7680538
It's only defined socially. In genetics people deal with population genetics.
Posts like you are what we're all talking about. Retards who only have a pop-sci grasp of science.
>>7680541
Haplogroups still aren't quite sufficient. It's easy to see why when you compare MT-DNA haplogroups with Y-DNA haplogroups.
>>7680545
>It's totally real you guise.
>Ancestry.com is totally not just aimed at pop-sci retards in the public.
I laff'd
>>7680562
>they are considered fields of science in academia
Try to submit a social science paper to Science or Nature.
Oh wait, you don't do research, do you? And I doubt you go to a uni either.
Strange how people not in academia think they know what goes on in it.
Social science departments are never under science departments.
>>7680560
you're trying to mix culture with the physical and biological properties of people that comes from DNA and say "culture is so vague that we can't know nothing"
Atleast now I know you're trolling.
>>7680562
>Social sciences are still science.
>>7680560
>It's only defined socially.
It's not it's defined in fields such as diagnostic medicine and is an extremely useful approximation that saves thousands of lives every year. You understand neither physiology or genetics, but you're arguing vehemently with that one nature study you posted and ignoring the rest of science.
Again you are exactly the same pop-sci retard as you think the people you are arguing against are.
>>7680557
>/sci/ is too autistic. It can't be saved.
Of course /sci/ is too autistic! That's why its SCIENCE!
Seriously, this is funny as hell to me at the moment. /sci/ is getting trolled hard, and there is just so many bites. I'm not doing it, but I understand why it happens, and it has me laughing, even though my inner OCD autistic child is screaming at the trolling. (The secret to being a /sci/ nerd and still being able to go out in public: learn how to keep your inner OCD autist in its proper place while in public.)
>>7680562
>social sciences are science
November 25: The day /pol/ went full retard
>>7680566
Ethnicity refers to culture. Even the racial science retards acknowledge it as something completely different from "race".
This is how we all know you're retarded.
>>7680570
This post was written by a 12 year old.
>>7680563
>/his/
>history and humanities
>says nothing about science, social or otherwise
This is getting pretty silly desu
>>7680573
I'm pretty sure the "neckbeards" here actually do research and study science, unlike you.
Tell me, what do you study in particular?
>>7680569
>The doctors do a super legit medical test that decides your race!
>For reals, they don't just ask you to fill out a form with a bunch of checkboxes labeled "race".
>>7680571
hey don't badmouth /sjw/ ! Without social sciences /sjw/ wouldn't exist. Atleast let them feel like they can belong to a science board.
>>7680562
>social sciences are still science
>>7680576
> deflecting the point of the post so we can talk about you instead
typical. atleast I expected you to stay ontopic but oh well..
>>7680565
>it doesn't have a Nature subjournal so it's not a science
undergraduates are so insufferable sometimes
>>7680562
>Social sciences are science
>>7680562
>Social sciences are still science.
topkek. I didn't know people could be this fucking stupid
>>7680586
pic related
>>7680583
I think NEETs who don't study anything and pretend to be experts are much more insufferable. And I'm a grad student.
If you think social science papers are accepted into any respectable scientific journal, then you're a bigger idiot than I thought.
See, now if politics was outright banned that last ugly little autism could've been avoided.
>>7679345
What you working on bro?
>>7680591
This.
Ban politics on /sci/. It doesn't belong here.
>>7680574
Only emotionally. Humor often works that way.
And I hope that is making you laugh, since you are shitposting as well.
>>7680591
again. it boils down to what is politics and what is not.
There's a faggot here who linked to ancestry.com and then called social science a science.
/sci/ is fucking doomed.
>>7680597
Do you actually care about science? Or do you just want to proselytize people?
>>7680598
It's like your 6th spampost on bitching about DNA testing. Why don't you try forming arguments instead ?
>>7680590
>grad student
HA
So your babby tier introduction to academia makes you think are the arbiter of what is and isn't a respectable journal? Amazing.
Hey guys, the "E" in STEM doesn't stand for "economics". Social science isn't a science.
>>>/trash/
>>7680603
Are you a professor or a postdoc student? What do you study?
And I'm not the arbiter. If you were in academia, you would know metrics by which journals are judged.
>>7680600
>This guy legit thinks it's only one person arguing with him.
>>7680597
No one gets butthurt and starts posting selected halplogroup studies if they don't have obvious political motivations.
You don't get angry if someone uses the word genus, or outdated words like kingdom because those words don't carry political weight.
In the same you don't insist that everyone adds Lorentz factors to all calculations, because classical Newtonian force is a useful concept on it's own that has useful implications in its approximated domain. And you sure as hell don't say Newtonian physics is no longer a science.
I swear to god, the latter would probably happen if some activists lobbied for long enough. That's just how pointless the arguments by these nutters are. In the end it's a stupid semantic clusterfuck.
>>7680600
Not only one person is arguing with you.
>>7680608
it's sadder that none could form arguments. i liked the reaction images though, i think that was the best they could do.
>>7679425
What are you on about? You're probably talking about someone else? Anyway I don't need to know fucking fluid mech for a /diy/ project. Anytime I ever did anything with fluids all that was sufficient was mass continuity and maybe some Bernoulli then add in efficiency constants. I neither know nor care about Navier-Stokes because it's way overkill for what I do. Some people are here to discuss basic maths and science if this is "beneath you" then fuck off to stack exchange.
>>7680610
You got BTFO man. Swallow your pride along with the cum in your mouth.
>>7680612
> climate change
you mean /x/
>>7680615
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Instead of giving your dumbass opinion, provide some research papers and discuss the subject. If not, then it belongs on /pol/.
>>7680610
>Get unanimously ridiculed.
>"I won the argument".
Are you for real?
>>7680614
your arguments are astounding
>>7680608
Not one of those are posted within 1 minute of each other and they are all equally austistic and empty so I'd have to agree with the other guy that it's most likely you posted all of them.
Don't bother flipping out your laptop to double post, we know you're a samefagger now.
>>7680610
>i-i won the argument ;-;
Do you guys have no self-awareness?
>>7679164
Too many normies.
>>7680622
this tbqh
if you don't study science, then gtfo you fucking normalfaggots
>>7680378
The popsci fags aren't even that bad, they have interesting discussions. It's the actual students that are the worst because they try to enforce elitism when they really don't have the qualifications to do so. Think about it /sci/ has three choices
>Popsci discussion, mostly bullshit but fun and at everyone's knowledge level
>Serious science discussion, barely anyone here is even halfway through a degree so threads will inevitably be on dry basic calculus and mechanics, more or less a homework board
>"Serious science discussion" where aforementioned college students who know barely anything about rigorous relativity or number theory try to discuss these topics. It will just end up being a pseudo-intellectual circlejerk no better than popsci which is at least honest.
>>7680612
this pretty much covers it
>>7680605
Postdoc in physics. Please tell me how the American Journal of Psychiatry is not a respectable journal.
>>7680625
> everything I don't like is /pol/
then you retard why people call you out for being a /sjw/ shitposter. Your banter don't belong to this board so stop shitposting the same crap in every thread you see.
>>7680629
>psychiatry
>a social science
Seriously?
>>7680632
>banter
>SJW
You don't have to believe in climate change. Are you a fucking retard? What we're saying is that you should talk about papers you read instead of forcing your uninformed opinions like it's expertise.
>>7680632
Psychiatry is rarely discussed here. We usually discuss topics related to neuroscience since we have memes about medicine not being a science, which you would know if you weren't such a newfag and because most of us are undergrad and grad students and not med students.
>>7680632
I actually think AGW is retarded, unsubstantiated bullshit, but your post linking /x/ was /pol/.
>>7680641
Sorry about the period in my name field. Don't know how that happened.
>>7680633
How about The Economic Journal or The Cambridge Law Journal? Are you saying these are not respectable journals?
>>7680629
What do you research and what journals do you read? I'm in physics as well, related to medical linear accelerators.
>How do go fester then lights
>213 replies and 12 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>7680646
They aren't scientific journals. Are you shifting the goalposts that much?
>>7680641
and you /pol/ banter is /sjw/. simply because you can't think people can simply make a remark about it being ridiculous with being a from /pol/. so please, stay at /sjw/
>>7680629
If you're in physics, why do you think you know anything about genetics? Are you actually well-read in the field? Do you have some journal recs?
>>7680654
Can you try to make a coherent sentence?
>>7680651
This is just nitpicking the definition of social science again.
>>7680648
>What do you research
It's a secret :^)
>what journals do you read?
Physical Review (Letters and A) and occasionally some Nature subjournals (mostly Photonics and Communications).
>related to medical linear accelerators
noice, for making isotopes or as a radiation source?
>>7680664
Was it challenging for you to understand ?
>>7680666
Are Law and Economics science?
And the question was whether social science paper are accepted by respectable _science_ journals.
You're telling me that social science journals accept social science papers. Congrats on that insipid statement.
>it's a secret :^)
Bullshit.
>>7680654
I never said your from /pol/ or even thought you were, I said political discussions belong on /pol/.
To expand on what's been previously said, low brow banter on any issues that anyone without a STEM background can make belongs on /pol/, clever banter on issues which requires a STEM background to understand belongs on /sci/.
You might not like this now, but you certainly won't like it when a thousand reddit kids come in here to "banter" on the other side of the fence.
>>7680666
If social sciences are a science, you're telling me that Women Studies and African-American studies are sciences.
Fucking topkek
>>7680670
They are respectable social science journals, therefore, they are respectable science journals. Just because the subject they publish about doesn't fit under your narrow (and incorrect) definition of what a science is does not mean they are not scientific journals.
>>7680666
>for making isotopes or as a radiation source
Congrats on outing yourself as a popscifag. Your question doesn't make sense.
I think you guys forget one thing
Most of the people on 4chen are socially awkward peguins
the people who are actually doing the real stuff won't waste their time here, instead they get their shit done
>>7680673
> you're telling me that Women Studies and African-American studies are sciences.
They are >:'O
>>7680673
rekt
>>7680671
I never said I knew anything about genetics, not sure where you got that from desu.
>>7680677
Well I'm at work and getting shit done. But right now Im bored as fuck and waiting for the food to arrive so i'm just fueling the /pol/ vs /sjw/ war because thats the only interaction I get around here :^)
>>7680682
Are you not someone who participates in the population/race genetics threads? If you are, then you should have some background knowledge in genetics.
>>7680673
>I don't like their methodology so they are not science
Good feels argument. Still wrong though.
>>7680685
Alright. Make a thread about Foucault right now then.
>>7680677
>Successful and gregarious people don't post on the internet.
This isn't /r9k/, I'm posting on /sci/ right now in between getting ready for a departmental party with with industry and academic leaders tonight.
Posting on /sci/ is actually a nice warmup for me before I network. It helps me unwind from my researcher an I find I think quicker and seek social interaction more.
>>7680685
So I can talk about Marxism and feminism on /sci/?
