/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6287059]

So tell me /sci/, what is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?
Why? And how do we defeat them?

[Anonymous No.6287063]

>what is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?
philosophy

>Why?
because of their anti-intellectul "cannot know nuthin" bullshittery

>And how do we defeat them?
let them rot in their pseudo-intellectualism while we do science and math, maybe occasionally make fun of them and their ignorance

[Anonymous No.6287064]

Fear is the biggest enemy of progress. Education is the only way to defeat it

[Anonymous No.6287075]

>>6287063

idiot

[Anonymous No.6287079]

"Progress" doesn't have a lot of enemies. We're pretty pro-"progress."

[Anonymous No.6287082]

>>6287063
You're acting like all philosophy is postmodernism. Science is built on naturalistic philosophy. Philosophy is an enormous and diverse field. Only a small subset conflicts with scientific methodology.

It's not like postmodernists are making serious efforts to get governments to cut science funding or remove topics they don't like from public schools. New age hippies and burger flippers with BA degrees don't have that kind of power. The worse they ever do is spread their bullshit to a small number of people through the internet.

I know /sci/ isn't the place for science vs religion debates, but creationists have done thousands more to damage science than postmodernists. You might think all they want to do is keep school kids from learning about evolution, but they're attacking stem cell research, astronomy, physics, chemistry and the scientific methodology itself. They've been fairly successful too.

[Anonymous No.6287095]

>>6287082
Dis.
Postmodernists and faggot epistemologists are no big deal, just annoying.

[Anonymous No.6287097]

>>6287082
>It's not like postmodernists are making serious efforts to get governments to cut science funding or remove topics they don't like from public schools.

They do. In most countries an ethics council consisting of philosophers and religitards is heavily influencing governmental decisions and responsible for banning things like eugenics or medical experiments on humans. They are opposing progress and their only argument against it boils down to "muh feelings".

[Anonymous No.6287128]

>>6287082
So Religion is the main enemy then?

[Anonymous No.6287129]

>>6287059
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6287136]

>>6287129
Are you implying this thread is out of the subject area of the board?

[Anonymous No.6287142]

>>6287136
So tell me /sci/, what is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?

/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6287145]

pic related

Pop sci and sci fi tards are the real enemies of science and they don't even realize it. They show off their ignorance and their misunderstanding of basic concepts everywhere, while being the loudest and most obnoxious fucktards, living in the delusion they know more science than any real scientist. Just take a look at /sci/. I'm talking about the kind of people who don't even know high school math but who parade around this board, forcing their anti-scientific beliefs about transhumanism or the Drake equation onto everyone, incorrectly mislabeling their dogmatic falsehoods as "science".

[Anonymous No.6287147]

>>6287097

The need for "progress" is a feeling.

>>6287082

(Some) popular science writers waste their time attacking philosophy - using, surprise, philosophy! The only defences for science are philosophical ones, and, for the most part, scientists are completely incapable of arguing coherently for science as a unified project. What is needed more than ever is philosophy, if science is to continue as it has. Regressions are always possible.

[Anonymous No.6287150]

>>6287059
religion & politics

[Anonymous No.6287156]

there are none

this is 2014

[Anonymous No.6287189]

>>6287145

Science fiction isn't supposed to be scientifically accurate. Like fantasy, it's supposed to provide a backdrop of allegories not intended to be taken literally.

[Anonymous No.6287193]

>>6287063
>what is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?

>not limited funding
>not insidious political agendas
>not a fucked-up educational system
>not an uninterested and/or generally ignorant populace

>no, the biggest problem facing Science and Math is the arcane and extremely technical work of some shitty French philosophers; that's what's really holding us back

Even if you're b8 m8, anyone who thinks this is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.6287195]

>>6287064
I would disagree and say fear drives a desire to understand so you no longer have to fear whatever it is. Therefore fear drives progress.

Morality and imposed social rules are the biggest hindrance to progress.
For example, I doubt a study conducted on differences between whites and blacks would get much funding because of
>muh racism

[Anonymous No.6287200]

>>6287156

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.6287201]

>>6287145
what a bullshit

also transhumanism is a philosophy it's neither 'anti-scientific' nor 'belief'

[Anonymous No.6287202]

>>6287189
Of course it has nothing to do with science. That doesn't stop people from being retards though. Look at the so called "transhumanists" who believe their fantasy garbage is synonymous with science.

[Anonymous No.6287206]

>>6287201
Transhumanism is a cult. It's basically scientology for children.

[Anonymous No.6287213]

>>6287059
>So tell me /sci/, what is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?
Atheist
>Why?
Popsci is not science
>And how do we defeat them?
Ovens

[Anonymous No.6287216]

>>6287201
>is a philosophy
>it's neither 'anti-scientific' nor 'belief'

These two statements contradict each other. All of philosophy is "I want to believe whatever fairy tale most appeals to me". Philosophy in general is already anti-scientific. A kind of philosophy specifically promoting the denial of science in favor of fantasy is the epitome of anti-intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.6287222]

Religion (however this could be put within irrationality)
Irrationality
Ignorance
Apathy

>Why?
Seems inane to elaborate

>How do we defeat them?
We could use all kinds of methods, but much of the time people wouldn't be compliant.

[Anonymous No.6287225]

>>6287128
Not quite. While I do think that religion may be at the heart of many fearful, anti-science philosophies, simply having religion exist is not necessarily detrimental to progress. It often is, but not necessarily.
Gregor Mendel, for example, was an Austrian monk. But without him, we may not have the basic model of genetic inheritance we have today.

[Anonymous No.6287227]

>>6287225
>Mendelian inheritance

You meand the flawed racist pseudoscience promoted by /pol/?

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.6287234]

>>6287216
eww, it's so many false statements at once

philosophy isn't believing, it's a searching ways to think about stuff. btw the base principles of scientific method are based by philosophy of science. transhumanism don't deny science since they base all their dreams on the progress of it, their main idea is merely that humans will use science to change their bodies and the whole way of existence in the future. if anything they are allies of science

[Anonymous No.6287237]

>progress

Hate that term. It implies there's a universal goal and we need the state to achieve it.

[Anonymous No.6287239]

>>6287234
>philosophy isn't believing
Philosophy is about opinions which cannot be proven or falsified. Philosophy means defending baseless belief with fallacies, the opposite of science.

>transhumanism don't deny science
Science is deeply rooted in reality. Escapist fantasies mean denial of reality and are thus anti-science.

>if anything they are allies of science
They are enemies of science because they prefer fantasy over reality.

[Anonymous No.6287249]

>>6287239

>Philosophy is about opinions

So you're against opinions - and you fight this with...more opinions! Genius philosophizing.

>Science is deeply rooted in reality

Science is a human activity. If what you're saying is that there is a deep identity between our thinking and the world then you're on to something - you just don't know it.

[Anonymous No.6287253]

>>6287216
What are you twelve? You don't understand what philosophy is at all. Do you know what the "PhD" in "I have a PhD in Physics" stands for? You sound like a buthurt child who wants to shit on philosophy because in your mind it is ant-science and you're too lazy to google it and read the wikipedia page.

Philosophy is the act of thinking about things. It covers every way you could think about any subject: Ethics, aesthetics, logic, knowledge, reality, etc. Calling philosophy stupid is calling thinking stupid. Science and math are the products of philosophy. Science is a methodology based on natural philosophy. Math is axiomatic logic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6287254]

>>6287249
>So you're against opinions
I am not against opinions. I am against philosophy.

>Science is a human activity.
Science is objective truth. This is guaranteed by the scientific method and peer review.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.6287255]

>>6287222
omg, people still (!) think of religion as of the biggest enemy

anyway it's all is the bullshit since the biggest enemy it's lack of funding when funding often depends on possible commerce profit

>>6287239
opinions aren't beliefs

science it's just a tool. escapist dreamers can use it as well as anybody else

no comments

[Anonymous No.6287256]

>>6287253

>You don't understand what philosophy is at all.

No one in /sci/ understands philosophy, they think it's some mystic 2deep4u thing.

[Anonymous No.6287257]

>>6287064
Fear is the mind killer

[Anonymous No.6287258]

>>6287253
Perhaps you should mentally leave the 18th century and go with the times. Nowadays we have science and math which made philosophy obsolete. The word philosophy denotes those areas of interest which are not science or math, i.e. all unfalsifiable, untestable and unprovable bullshit, e.g. metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.6287259]

>>6287227
8/10 made me chuckle
Yes, Mendelian genetics is largely flawed, but it did help form the basis for modern genetics.

[Anonymous No.6287260]

>>6287063

this so hard

fucking shitty state college english majors thinking they know more about the universe than ivy league stemmers performing international experiments

[Anonymous No.6287261]

>>6287254
>Science is objective truth. This is guaranteed by the scientific method and peer review.

if you were aquanited with the basic epistemic problem which brought about the natural science you wouldn't day such stupid things

[Anonymous No.6287262]

>>6287254

It's thanks to philosophy that science is objective.

[Anonymous No.6287265]

>>6287254

>I am against philosophy.

That's based on your opinions. What matters is if you can rationally justify them. I don't think you can, given your dogmatic assertions, but try?

>Objective truth

So you're saying truth is identical with theory? You're doing so well! Now where do the theories come from again?

[Anonymous No.6287266]

>>6287255
>opinions aren't beliefs
Yes, they are.

>science it's just a tool.
Science is more than a tool. Science is objective truth.

>escapist dreamers can use it as well as anybody else
They can't because they deny it. They are lacking the intellectual capacities to understand it. I bet you also believe "creation science" qualifies as science.

[Anonymous No.6287267]

>>6287254

>Science is objective truth.

Please do explain why science should be objective and why should we use the scientific method.

Oh wait you need philosophy to do that, lol

[Anonymous No.6287269]

>>6287258

1. Mathematics is metaphysics and its foundations are closely associated with philosophy
2. Unfalsifiablity as a criterion for valid propositions is a concept that was argued in philosophy

[Anonymous No.6287270]

>>6287261
There is no epistemic problem. The scientific method works. Deal with it.

>>6287262
Appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

[Anonymous No.6287275]

>>6287270

>Appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

Explain why.

Again, you need philosophy to explain why. Arisotle to be precise.

[Anonymous No.6287276]

>>6287270
>There is no epistemic problem. The scientific method works. Deal with it.

And I would be inclined to agree with you, but I argue that the problem is not problematic rationally and thusly participate in philosophical discourse.

[Anonymous No.6287277]

>>6287265
>What matters is if you can rationally justify them.
It's just common sense.

>I don't think you can, given your dogmatic assertions, but try?
Science isn't dogma, you shitty religion troll. Science is the opposite of dogma.

>>6287267
>Oh wait you need philosophy to do that
All I need to do that is rationality.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.6287281]

i don't think it's wise to discuss anything with a person who has an opinion that opinions are beliefs and that science is an objective truth

[Anonymous No.6287282]

>>6287269
>1. Mathematics is metaphysics
No.

>2. Unfalsifiablity as a criterion for valid propositions is a concept that was argued in philosophy
The uneducated opinions of philosotards do not invalidate the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6287287]

>>6287277

>All I need to do that is rationality.

Precisely, philosophy is rationality.

[Anonymous No.6287288]

>>6287275
>Arisotle to be precise.
You went full retard. Never go full retard. Aristotle is of no value whatsoever anymore, except for having written a text for children to learn ancient greek. From our modern point of view Aristotle would be clinically retarded. With his clumsy failure at basic propositional logic he would have failed every IQ test.

>>6287281
>ad hominem

>>6287287
Philosophy is irrational because it has no objective basis.

[Anonymous No.6287290]

>>6287282
>The uneducated opinions of philosotards do not invalidate the scientific method.

They DO validate it, are you even following?

[Anonymous No.6287291]

>>6287254
> Science is objective truth.
Lol no. Get a load of this guy calling philosophers dogmatic then making these assertions.

Science is without question the best methodology humans have for determining what is true and what is false, but it is not not a perfect system. Shitty papers make it through peer review occasionally. Even if this never happened what science offers is testable models of reality (theories). A scientific theory is not absolute truth. Science wouldn't work if it used this kind of asinine logic. All we can ever say about the theory of relativity is that it has given results that match observations in every single test. We wouldn't still be testing it or any other theory if it was thought impossible for them to have faults.

[Anonymous No.6287293]

>>6287277

>common sense

What a coincidence, your opinions coincide with common sense. There's really nothing at stake here for you is there?

>Science isn't dogma

Your "anti-philosophy" mantra is pure dogma. "Common Sense" doesn't even try to be anything else *but* dogma.

And you never answered me: You believe theory is identical with truth? You're on the right track, you just need to *think* more about where theory comes from.
Spoiler: its from thinking itself.

[Anonymous No.6287294]

>>6287288

>With his clumsy failure at basic propositional logic he would have failed every IQ test.

Aristotle is the father of logic, please fuck off.

>Philosophy is irrational because it has no objective basis.

Please explain why things should have an objective basis.

[Anonymous No.6287295]

>>6287294
>Aristotle is the father of logic
That doesn't mean he was good at it. Spoiler: He sucked at logic.

>Please explain why things should have an objective basis.
This is self-explanatory.

[Anonymous No.6287298]

>>6287258
You know that the scientific method is unfalsifiable, untestable and unprovable metaphysics right? It's a concept created by humans that exists in our minds. You can't put it in a test tube and run an experiment on it.

[Anonymous No.6287300]

>>6287295

Euclides would have sucked at modern topology, what's your point?

>This is self-explanatory.

No it's not. Otherwise the scientific method would have been invented 3000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.6287302]

>>6287288
1. Aristotle is the founder of logic and biology. His contributions to these fields were unmatched for a thousand years. Contemporaneously his work in ethics and politics are of great interest to philosophers.
2. Aristotle's method for inquiry is very much like the scientific method. He had no dogmatic system in his natural science or philosophical writing. His method presupposed that others might work out his errors and move closer toward the truth. It is only under Christianity that he becomes "The Master of Those Who Know" and his dialogue becomes a doctrine.

[Anonymous No.6287305]

>>6287298
The scientific method works. Deal with it.

>>6287300
>Euclides would have sucked at modern topology, what's your point?
You used an appeal to authority by citing Aristotle. I demonstrated why your fallacy was retarded.

>Otherwise the scientific method would have been invented 3000 years ago.
3000 years ago people were too religous to understand science.

[Anonymous No.6287309]

>>6287302
>1. Aristotle is the founder of logic and biology.
His works were primitive and from our point of view he would be diagnosed with mental retardation. Every 5 year old nowadays has a better understanding than Aristotle.

>His contributions to these fields were unmatched for a thousand years.
Only because the Roman empire never cared about technological or scientific progress but only about military expansion.

>Contemporaneously his work in ethics and politics are of great interest to philosophers.
Hahaha, oh wow. You couldn't be more wrong. His works on politics have always been and will always be a laughing stock. His works on ethics are superfluous platitudes (like all works on ethics).

>2. Aristotle's method for inquiry is very much like the scientific method.
Writing down asinine baseless drivel is not scientific at all.

[Anonymous No.6287314]

>>6287305

Withouth philosophy you wouldn't know what a fallacy is.

[Anonymous No.6287320]

Muslims.

Better computer algorithms to determine where to conduct drone strikes.

[Anonymous No.6287329]

>>6287314
Exactly. Because without philosophy everyone would use arguments instead of fallacies.

[Anonymous No.6287331]

>>6287193
Well said.

[Anonymous No.6287336]

>>6287329
NICE

[Anonymous No.6287346]

>>6287305
>The scientific method works. Deal with it.
This is the philosophical concept of pragmatic epistemology. Every time you make an argument you are employing philosophy. You don't hear philosophers talking about empiricism or rationalism much because there's nothing really left to argue about. That doesn't mean empiricism and rationalism (AKA How Scientists think) are not philosophy. It doesn't matter if university philosophy departments turn out nothing but postmodernist wankers these days, that doesn't change what philosophy is. Not many students learn how to program in COBOL anymore, that doesn't mean COBOL isn't a programming language.

[Anonymous No.6287359]

>>6287346
>It doesn't matter if university philosophy departments turn out nothing but postmodernist wankers these days

Thing is they aren't. That's sociology departments that don't take their foundational theory classes seriously enough, so the tout their naive understandings of Marx and Foucault as the word of God.

[Anonymous No.6287365]

Capitalists.

Lets say you have a planet whose life support systems are Goldilocks.

Capitalists dominate society; they force people with intelligence to monetize their skills.

Capitalists make money on the short-term proliferation of devices and capabilities for a few generations.

The result is a planet whose atmosphere is polluted with carbon, overpopulated, deforested, and devastated by religious, political, and environmental problems for hundreds and thousands of years, until everything is wiped out, at which point the last remaining bands of miserable humans babble at each other in acrude animalistic state and organize their lives around religious instincts and artifacts.

The fucking end.

Hope you enjoyed this little story.

Pictured: like before cellphones, PCs, Facebook, and internet porn

[Anonymous No.6287396]

I'd have to say atheism is the largest threat to science. Their know-it-all attitude impedes exploring the difficult paradigm shifting concepts that will lead to new knowledge.

[Anonymous No.6287421]

>>6287063
Philosophy 101 isn't academic philosophy. Stop advocating this inimical lie.

[Anonymous No.6287424]

Women, if they weren't around to distract men, we would have already terraformed our solar system, and developed bio-organs to make ourselves immortal.

The solution is simple.

[Anonymous No.6287459]

>>6287424
>that pic
sex is more than seeing tits and getting to empty to your balls
come back when they create perfect sex robots with smooth skin, realistic weight and a pussy where i don't have to fear getting my dick crushed every time it moves

[Anonymous No.6287479]

>>6287459

When the depth-groveling laymen see what the future holds, these ideas will recieve more funding from private sector.

[Anonymous No.6287483]

>>6287396
yeah this
and pseudoskepticism generally

[Anonymous No.6287487]

Morality or Egoism, one of the two.

[Anonymous No.6287509]

>>6287479
imo it definitely won't hit mass production before you include something people can touch
played through a game a week ago that included a first person sight sex scene, was kinda irritating

[Anonymous No.6287523]

Indifference and apathy.

[Anonymous No.6287550]

Capitalism

[Anonymous No.6287575]

/sci/ is the biggest enemy of science. I don't think I have ever seen a place with such a high concentration of ignorant people.

From browsing /sci/ I have concluded that this is the only board on 4chan that is 100% trolls/idiots. Most boards have at least 50% trolls/idiots, but also at least some people with a genuine interest in and knowledge about the board theme. /sci/ however is fully 100% retards, trolls, and people who think they are smart but couldn't even get a degree in business administration. Bunch of NEETs keeping up their own illusions of intelligence. Most discussion is only pseudo-science, high school mathematics, or quoting wikipedia on shit they dont understand.

[Anonymous No.6287603]

>>6287575
>this is the only board on 4chan that is 100% trolls/idiots
LMFAO

I bet you're just a moron from /x/ or /pol/ who came here to talk about pseudo-science and you're mad because we scientifically corrected your uneducated nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6287609]

>So tell me /sci/, what is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?
For science in general, it's politics. For physics and applied maths, it's the public school maths education. For biology, it's religious fanaticism.

Honourable mentions go to The Big Bang Theory (the TV show, not the actual BBT) and new age quantum conciousness/quantum chakra crystal healing/etc.

[Anonymous No.6287614]

>>6287603
What? The only thing you find on this board is pseudoscience, philosophy, troll math and when lucky occasionally highschool math.
I bet you are one of those "3*(0.333.....) != 1 " guys

[Anonymous No.6287625]

The sooner we mix spirituality and science we will evolve beyond our imagination just look at our histrory all discoery stems from spirituality when we go full circle the discoverys will be endless

[Anonymous No.6287630]

>>6287614
You forgot to mention our science and math threads. Oh right, you ignore them because you lack the intellect to participate. If you only come here for the shitposting, you have no right to complain.

[Anonymous No.6287651]

>>6287630
kek
You are either utterly insane or insufferably stupid.

[Anonymous No.6287653]

>>6287651
>ad hominem

[Anonymous No.6287659]

>>6287653
No shit, Sherlock.

[Anonymous No.6287663]

>>6287630
>our science and math threads

[Carl !!dFf2PUolAtC No.6287687]

>>6287059
>What is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?
1) People who are unwilling to learn.
2) People who are unwilling to teach.


>Why?
People who are unwilling to learn cannot be convinced or reasoned with. They have an established view of reality that cannot be changed or swayed with facts, evidence, or arguments. They are short-sighted and callous people who will ignore or actively attack people and ideas that challenges their views.

People unwilling to teach deprive those who <span class="math">can[/spoiler] be convinced of new ideas and perspectives. They refuse to share knowledge and understanding with others but spitefully flaunt it and taunt those they deem 'beneath them'. They are cynical and pretentious people who only serve to foster further public distrust of and distaste for educators and intellectuals.


>How do we defeat them?
Stop supporting them.

[Anonymous No.6287698]

>what is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?
technocrats, especially futurists, especially especially singularitarians

>Why?
because they ideologize science, which should be open access and for everyone

it's especially awful when technocrats style themselves as objective "rationalists" and claim the right to rule because they are supposedly apolitical. holy shit

>And how do we defeat them?
scientists need to be politically involved and academia needs to end its business alliance. singularitarians will disappear in 15 years when none of their predictions turn out true

our last resort is to hope california breaks off the continent and sinks into the pacific

[Anonymous No.6287703]

>>6287698
>singularitarians will disappear in 15 years when none of their predictions turn out true
because the apocalypse failing to occur in 2013 totally stopped people from believing in it, right?

[Anonymous No.6287707]

>>6287193
ahaha holy shit so right

[Anonymous No.6287710]

>>6287707
in fact can i substitute my answer for this guy's

[Anonymous No.6287715]

>>6287059
>what is the biggest enemy of progress?
Ethics

[Anonymous No.6287718]

>>6287698
Somebody is being jelly of Silicon Valley's popular & critical acclaim and business successes. The utopian technocracy centered on gadgets will come whether you like it or not.

You are an old crocodile and an impediment to progress.

[Anonymous No.6287730]

>>6287718
so
a. i'm a young crocodile. actually i'm about a 28y old crocodile? i don't know what that is in crocodile years
and
b. have fun living in your shiny ipod hi-rise oh wait that's never going to happen because the economy and climate can't support it

maybe you can manage a glossy joke city like dubai or maybe you can go seasteading with peter thiele before time runs short and reality takes a shit on california like the fremen on arrakeen

[Anonymous No.6287731]

>>6287718
also i love how the chomsky vs. norvig debate was like
chomsky - your methodology is wrong
norvig - oh yeah? well claude shannon made more money than you. *links wiki page*

way to go singularity summit intellectual capital #1

[Anonymous No.6287732]

>>6287059
lack of funding and bureaucracy

also ignorance and stupid people who think "science doesn't affect me, why should i care"

[Anonymous No.6287734]

>>6287730
How does it feel to know that pretty much every single cultural and technological product you consume is being produced in California? California rules the world. First with Hollywood and now with the Santa Clara County.
Deal with it, luddite.

You mad because Californians have swag and you don't?

[Anonymous No.6287743]

>>6287734
You're browsing a clone of a Japanese website on a computer that was made in China.

[Anonymous No.6287746]

>>6287734
>luddite impediment to progress
i build graph systems to support brainscale computation but yeah, ray kurzweil's undying corpse definitely rules the world because capitalism. i mean just look at all that money!

like i've actually been to these places a lot and know what i'm talking about and can manage some intellectual consistency but keep dreaming i'm simultaneously a luddite and an apple product consumer or w/e. can't be both

[Anonymous No.6287747]

>>6287731
Chomsky is a typical conservative (I don't mean conservative in the political sense) outdated Northeastern crocodile.
The war in the US is not the Democrats against the Republicans, it's a war of generations between California and the Northeast.

[Anonymous No.6287748]

>>6287743
god hand tier response 20/10

[Anonymous No.6287750]

>>6287747
yeah and california is definitely the new guard future vanguard revolutionaries and not a bunch of rich white guys who are scared of death and dipping their toes in lobbying

totally that's reality man

[Anonymous No.6287752]

>>6287750
>steve jobs dies
>ray kurzweil is 65
THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR

i bet you read elizier yudkowsky

[Anonymous No.6287754]

>>6287747
When did "crocodile" become an insult? Are we calling each other animal names now?

Let me try. You're a ... kangaroo. That's right, you fucking kangaroo. I hope you feel insulted now.

[Anonymous No.6287758]

>>6287754
Old crocodile = old-fashioned people who are afraid of change and who cannot adapt to important paradigm shifts = luddites

[Anonymous No.6287762]

>>6287747
and the funny thing is that epistemologically i would probably agree more with norvig if he wasn't such an unprofessional goofball pulling abstruse comparisons between chomsky and bill o'reilly or w/e the fuck out of thin air because he has like, no academic discipline

[Anonymous No.6287763]

>>6287758
>paradigm shift

Nice buzzword you got there. You sound like an /x/tard.

[Anonymous No.6287765]

>>6287239
>Philosophy means defending baseless belief with fallacies, the opposite of science.
even worse than a fallacy is not offering any argument whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.6287767]

>>6287758
buzzword = magic chant i repeat to affirm my perspective = my ideology is not hard to understand

[Anonymous No.6287773]

>>6287763
uh i think by paradigm shift you meant "disruptive technology"

i paid good money to the singularity institute to equip myself with these important business terms

[Anonymous No.6287775]

>>6287758
I'd love to see change. For example I'd love to see people like you grow up. Aren't you a little bit too old for sci fi? Isn't it time for a "paradigm shift" in your psychological development towards maturity?

[Anonymous No.6287776]

anyway i'm going to go eat afghan food so peace california bitches. keep dreaming of electric sheep

[Anonymous No.6287780]

>>6287775
Yes, I'm young, fresh and sexy. You are senile, outdated and boring. Basically the conflict between California with its tech and entertainment industry and the Northeast with its oldschool finance and pretentious faggot academic, political and cultural industry.

[Anonymous No.6287783]

>>6287773
I'm sure that money was a good investment. Did you become an Operating Thetan?

[Anonymous No.6287799]

>>6287780

[Anonymous No.6287810]

>>6287799
>implying being edgy is not cool
>implying being Californian is not the best example of coolness personified

[Anonymous No.6287816]

>>6287687
nice

[Anonymous No.6287818]

>>6287810
I'm still cooler than you.

[Anonymous No.6287836]

religion is certainly one
think about how far they kept us back in copernicus' time and galileo
nothing has changed, they are just more subtle

[Anonymous No.6287837]

>So tell me /sci/, what is the biggest enemy of progress in the areas of Science and Math?
Europe, America, and white conservatives in general.

>Why?
Outdated thinking. They still believe in backwards ideas like nations.

And how do we defeat them?
We destroy their culture and their people and replace them with superior cultures and people.

[Anonymous No.6287846]

>At this moment, I am exalted. Not because of mere human reason alone, but because the Holy Spirit dwells within me.

[Anonymous No.6287996]

>>6287780
so like putting aside how hysterical this post is on its own the only reason you perceive a conflict between two " cultural industries" is precisely because you're a californian ideologue who interprets everything in terms of contemporary business metaphors

mark zuckerberg, revolutionary vanguard of the new generation

[Anonymous No.6288002]

>>6287996
like literally everything you're saying is a cow's regurgitation of really boring shit that venture capitalists tell each other to explain why they have money. "paradigm shift," "luddites," "afraid of change," "gadgets," products and industries and who introduced all these stupid terms into the conversation? wasn't me. technocrats can't talk about the future of science without reducing it to business terms

i kind of don't think you're a technocrat though, i think you read wired magazine or something

[Anonymous No.6288004]

>>6287059
The government.

If it's not research for use as a sword or shield for the military or concentrating more resources to a select few people/companies, then it either gets banned or regulated

[Anonymous No.6288007]

>>6287082
I-Is this what they're teaching these days?

[Anonymous No.6288012]

>>6287258
>The word philosophy denotes those areas of interest which are not science or math, i.e. all unfalsifiable, untestable and unprovable bullshit, e.g. metaphysics.
>claims to be against philosophy
>uses philosophy in his argumetns.

[Anonymous No.6288014]

>>6287270
>The scientific method works. Deal with it.
>Appeal to tradition is a fallacy.
well you just used appeal to tradition, so get your fucking head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.6288015]

>>6287227

>mendelian genetics
>flawed

Mendel was right, but he only isolated the simplest mechanisms of inheritance. The limits of Mendelian genetics aren't what they cover, but what they don't cover.

[Anonymous No.6288016]

>>6287288
>You went full retard. Never go full retard. Aristotle is of no value whatsoever anymore, except for having written a text for children to learn ancient greek. From our modern point of view Aristotle would be clinically retarded. With his clumsy failure at basic propositional logic he would have failed every IQ test.
If I wanted to refute you I would have to write four sentences for each of yours because the retardedness is so densely packed.

[Anonymous No.6288023]

>>6287305
>I demonstrated why your fallacy was retarded.
do you know how pseudo-intellectual you sound? you come across as an angsty community college student.

[Anonymous No.6288025]

>>6287082
>been fairly successful

Citation needed, show me the depth of their impact.

[Anonymous No.6288027]

>>6287309
>from our point of view he would be diagnosed with mental retardation. Every 5 year old nowadays has a better understanding than Aristotle.
do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

[Anonymous No.6288030]

>>6288023
>community college student

This must be the new meme, like /pol/'s "degenerate".

[Anonymous No.6288049]

>>6288030
Sorry, but he really did. I mean, come on:
>I demonstrated why your fallacy was retarded.
What does that sound like to you? Extremely angry, very stupid, poor writer. I needed a phrase that encapsulates all three.

[Anonymous No.6288069]

>>6287305
Why do STEM autists keep misusing fallacies?

Just because you think you sound smart when you use it doesn't mean you are. Or that you know wtf you are talking about for that matter.

[Anonymous No.6288124]

>>6288025
Look at Texas, for one. Rick Perry is a hardcore creationist, all of the people running for Texas Rep. are creationists, and creationism was just recently banned from science textbooks in Texas.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

This is actually a legitimate problem in the United States.