🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 19:25:04 UTC No. 16169456
Does the theory of evolution have any holes in it? Is there anything where our classical understanding may be incorrect or skewed?
🧵 Intersex question
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 19:07:17 UTC No. 16169433
Saw a thread on /adv/ about this, now I'm curious.
Is it possible for a biological woman to be born with a penis?
🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 19:06:08 UTC No. 16169430
If we live inside a simulation that means God exists, because the one that created this reality has to be a God. Atheists BTFO
🧵 While haven't you mathfags gotten rich like Jims Simon yet?
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 18:18:24 UTC No. 16169351
Yes, Renaissance Technologies pays CS/math/physics/statistics PhDs 7 figures starting total compensation.
>Please wait 300 seconds before sucking dicks.
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 16:11:44 UTC No. 16169179
Do we really know this s***?
🧵 How Do We Fight Global Warming?
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 15:29:06 UTC No. 16169116
Scientifically speaking, of course.
Seems like EVERYTHING that humans do causes global warming. Do we need to implement and raise carbon taxes in countries that already have them even further to fight global warming?
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 15:16:42 UTC No. 16169100
threadly reminder /sci/ is an Edison Board.
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 15:10:11 UTC No. 16169089
Six years ago, I was half as old as I will be four years from now. How old will I be five years from now?
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 13:57:20 UTC No. 16168984
What's the scientific non-kooky explanation for the UAPs?
🧵 Post your SAT and ACT scores ITT
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 13:55:54 UTC No. 16168981
Exactly what it says on the tin.
Is /sci/ as smart as they say it is? Let's find out.
🧵 Should philosophers be required to demonstrate mathematical proficiency?
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 13:42:05 UTC No. 16168968
This was the case during platos time as you were not respected as a philosophical thinker unless you understood trigonometry. But now anyone can be a highly respected philosopher without any mathematical understanding. The training to become a philosoher seems wholly inadequate in producing intellectuals. Anyone who is “interested” enough can earn a PhD and become a professor. There is really nothing that will weed people out for being inadequate. But if a prerequisite to becoming a philosopher would be to earn a masters or even a PhD in pure maths, I believe the field of philosophy would improve greatly. We could have been spared so much pseudo intellectualism from philosophers who really shouldn’t have been respected as intellectuals. This can apply to pretty much every non mathematical field. To be honest I believe that most fields have absolutely no real training necessary. For instance in philosophy the you do not need philosophical training to understand philosophical arguments by professors. But when it comes to math you would need years of training to understand modern math. It just shows how much a waste of time graduate school really is for many fields. It would probably be best for all subjects to have their professors be guys with math phds who decided to read about those subjects.
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 13:34:55 UTC No. 16168962
Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource? I read wikipedia science articles a lot and sometimes wonder if things are correct. I assume things that are referenced to academic papers are going to have a good chance of being correct, but it's not uncommon for half the article to be unsourced. Sometimes i'll check the Talk page of an article to see if people are complaining about stuff in the article, and while I've seen it happen a few times it doesn't seem that common, so I assume most articles are decent.
Do you have any examples of science articles on Wikipedia that are blatantly wrong? Not just because you have a hunch they're wrong, but you actually know some statement is verifiably incorrect.
While the Out of Africa theory is often debated on /sci/, the Talk page on wikipedia is basically empty, which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:
The Climate Change article though has almost 100 pages of people arguing against the content of the article, with lots of comments like this one for example. So I assume there is likely problems with the article content, or important information isn't being included
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 13:03:51 UTC No. 16168933
Do you think that artificial eyes that work almost or even fully identically to real eyes will be a reality within your lifetime?
🧵 alienterrnative exploration into original unicode
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 12:29:44 UTC No. 16168912
Where do I find my peers to peer-review it?
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 11:28:38 UTC No. 16168850
what do you think is the greater existential threat to humanity in the near term, rogue AI or hostile extraterrestrials
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 11:18:08 UTC No. 16168836
Behold, the most overrrated faggot in all of history of science
🧵 GreenMed
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 11:00:55 UTC No. 16168815
>be me
>anaesthesiology
>forced to listen to lecture by department every Friday
>mfw it's about the climate
>Desflourane is like driving across the country a couple of times in terms of CO2.
>just use sevo and a lower flow.
>Recycling i.v. tubes and shit
>Just do a tiva instead
>Don't draw up emergency medicine beforehand to avoid tossing it
They literally don't give a shit about patients. They'd prefer to get rid of anaesthesia all together and go back to giving patients a stick to bite on. Made from recycled wood of course.
🧵 Test.mensa.no is bullshit
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 09:34:08 UTC No. 16168747
>takes mensa's online IQ test
>bunch of basic pattern recognition puzzles.
>breezes through them all
>despite failing high school, I get an IQ score of 142
This test is so fucking stupid. I know I'm not the brightest but a score of 142?! thats ridiculous. I don't get why /sci/ takes this test seriously when you get some someone like me to score really high. I bet some of you guys can score higher than 160 on this test.
🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 09:09:38 UTC No. 16168728
>nah bro intelligent life? Impossible
>the closest habitable planet is not even 5 lightyears away
>even fucking Mars had conditions to support life
>estimated to be 40 billion habitable planets in the universe, minimum
Why is belief against intelligent life the scientific consensus? Why are scientists retarded in just this one area?
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 08:32:46 UTC No. 16168707
Modern authors and scientists have expressed skepticism about the accuracy of carbon dating.
Robert Schoch - A geologist and professor at Boston University, Schoch has questioned the validity of radiocarbon dating, suggesting that it may be skewed by factors such as changes in the Earth's magnetic field.
Richard Milton - A British author and science writer, Milton has written extensively about the problems with radiocarbon dating, arguing that it fails to account for fluctuations in atmospheric carbon-14 levels.
Gunnar Heinsohn - A German historian and archaeologist, Heinsohn has challenged the conventional chronology of ancient civilizations, proposing that radiocarbon dating has systematically underestimated the age of many artifacts and archaeological sites.
Immanuel Velikovsky - Although controversial, Velikovsky's works, such as "Worlds in Collision" and "Ages in Chaos," questioned the reliability of radiocarbon dating and proposed alternative explanations for the dating of various historical and geological events.
David Plaisted - A mathematician and physicist, Plaisted has published papers arguing that radiocarbon dating methods are flawed due to factors such as changes in the Earth's magnetic field and cosmic ray flux.
Ruggero Santilli - An Italian-American physicist, Santilli has proposed alternative models of nuclear reactions that could potentially affect the accuracy of radiocarbon dating techniques. These are just a few examples of modern scientists and authors who have challenged the mainstream acceptance of carbon dating as a reliable dating method. Their criticisms often focus on the potential for external factors, such as magnetic or environmental changes, to skew the results of radiocarbon dating, leading to inaccurate chronologies.
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 04:56:17 UTC No. 16168540
>tfw you realize you were never actually good at math, just at following instructions