/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12067659

>>12068844
>how do I prove my claim?
How exactly is it my problem that you're full of shit?

>>12037669
>get caught posting cherrypicked nonsense
>pretty feeble response
Yeah I'll bet you'll leave.

>>12028064
So overwhelming that it never gets posted, just constantly referred to as existing.

>>12023132
So please explain how controlled demolition was pulled off with no explosives, no installation, no trace whatsoever, and no explosions.

>>11998746
Why would I care if a subhuman like you is jealous?

>>11955179
>analysis
>aka drawing aliens over blurry shapes

>>11940392
Oh good, then I don't have to take your posts seriously. Nice joke.

>>11938334
>Who was measuring these complex probability amplitudes you start the derivation with?
You don't measure a probability amplitude, the probability amplitude relates measurements to the wave function. That was discovered by Max Born. But you already know this since you studied QM at the graduate level!

>Schrodinger originally claimed his equation solved for charge density how do you explain that?
The explanation is that he was wrong and failed to show this. What exactly needs to be explained?

>>11933731
>For it to be conditional, you need to ask: "what's the probability that you picked a gold ball and then you pick a gold ball?"
No, that's not even a conditional. That would be the chance you initially chose the first box, which is 1/3. The verb tenses don't change anything. You have no clue what you're talking about.

>The question as written in this shitty jpg only asks: "what's the probability that you pick a gold ball?"
No it doesn't. Do you seriously think both changing the wording of the problem and ignoring its context is going to fool anyone?

>>11928141
>And the heat released by fission would force the global temperature up by a similar amount to that of GHG emissions

>>11915704
>My proof does not rely on any reference to s=0.
>which is clearly bullshit for s≠0.

>>11893501
>mental gymnastics
>muh sun
>muh 140 years

>>11848026
>I'm what keeping progress possible.
>Without progress-oriented people like me who aren't scared shitless by memes the green movement would've destroyed society half a century ago.
Nice alarmism.

>Despite your track record of being 100% wrong every single time.
Yes, those dumb scientists are wrong 100%of the time. Evolution, round Earth, etc.

>>11825846
Because they're all shitposting on /sci/!

>>11805320
>Peer review is one of the stains on academia
LOL.

>has contributed to the politicization of science.
So your denial of climate science has nothing to do with your politics, right?

>Science got along fine without "peer review" before
In the 1600s? You're fucking hilarious.

>It's an invasive notion foisted on the scientific community by the medical community (not scientists).
Source?

>>11766166
>Monopoly and biodiversity loss -> plants more vulnerable to insects, viruses, bioweapons.
And where has this occurred due to GMOs?

>Farmers want to be competitive, so they buy patented GMO plants, which causes biodiversity loss.
That's bullshit as I already explained. Farmers have been monofarming for hundreds of years. This has nothing to do with GMOs.

>loss from normal agriculture + loss from GMO and patents = more loss
LOL, they're mutually exclusive. Either you're farming GMO or non-GMO. One replaces the other.

>It didn't, because there's still some diversity and genes/plants are owned by no one.
So when will there be 0 diversity so that your threat becomes real? LOL you have no idea what you're taking about.

>On the other hand patented genes are proprietary, farmers can't use own seeds, if they have the genes.
Farmers don't use their own seeds, they buy new ones with each planting since it's a waste of time to save the seeds. Nice LARP.

>>11698439
How are you still not getting it? If nothing was burning then what was on fire? Did your mother drop you on your head or were you born this stupid?

>>11694038
>However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's.
Which, again, is irrelevant to Gould's argument. Here are what Gould said is wrong:

1. Morton often chose to include or delete large subsamples within racial groups in order to match group averages with prior expectations

2. Morton used seed that would be arbitrarily packed into the skull to measure volume. Measurements of the same skulls with more accurate lead shot showed the seed method resulted in systematic underestimation of non-white skulls.

3. Morton failed to control for confounding factors such as age, gender and height.

4. Morton's accidental miscalculations and omissions systematically increased white skull volume or decreased non-white skull volume

Re-measurememt of the skulls is completely irrelevant to all four of these mistakes. Because you don't even know what you're arguing against, you incorrectly assumed that re-measurement was necessary to argue against Morton and sufficient to counter Gould. But it's neither.

>There is no way around this. No amount of philosophy major screeching changes this fact and that Gould was a hack.
There is no need to go around what never blocked your path in the first place.

>However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's.
They didn't even measure most of the skulls, so there is no reason to assume their average is representative of Morton's. You also fail to realize that one can be consistent with Morton by repeating his errors, such as measuring the same, misrepresentative samples as he did and failing to normalize the data as he did. You assume consistency is everything when it's actually nothing.

>>11687237
Buttblasted

>>11656178
>only the retards who don't have any sources to back them up can speak!

>And when provided with some of the responses from other physicists regarding his work, Wolfram is singularly unenthused. “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re communicating,” he grumbles. “I deserve better.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/

>>11639234
>Accuracy is (TP+TN)/(TP+FP+TN+FN) though.
Yes, and since here TP+FP+TN+FN = 1, accuracy = TP+TN

>>11628341
Thank you.

>>11628347
>>11628357
Stay mad, brainlets.