User Controls
The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-31 at 4:46 AM UTCPhilosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.
-
2018-03-31 at 4:47 AM UTCWithout philosophy of science science is nothing
-
2018-03-31 at 4:48 AM UTCPhilosophy of science is a class that scientists take for kicks. It's merely a fun addition to their real studies.
-
2018-03-31 at 4:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter Philosophy of science is a class that scientists take for kicks. It's merely a fun addition to their real studies.
This might explain why so many of the scientists I associate with know jack shit about epistemology and fall flat on their faces when trying to engage in intelligent discussion about anything outside their narrow field of specialization. -
2018-03-31 at 5 AM UTC
Originally posted by inb4l0pht This might explain why so many of the scientists I associate with know jack shit about epistemology and fall flat on their faces when trying to engage in intelligent discussion about anything outside their narrow field of specialization.
what do you try to discuss with them
if rainbows exist objectivelyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-31 at 5:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter Philosophy of science is a class that scientists take for kicks. It's merely a fun addition to their real studies.
I don't really think that's true but even if it were, is that supposed to be an indictment of it?
Many people take stats and a kind of tengental add-on to their core studies. Or some kind of programming/computational modeling course. The fact that philosophy of science is not a central subject of study for people who may go on to become scientists seems more like a problem the science curricula than with philosophy of science as a field. -
2018-03-31 at 5:03 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 5:05 AM UTCHave you guys heard of the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker? He's less well known, but it's interesting to see how much he's gotten away with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Night_Stalker -
2018-03-31 at 5:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Man, they always say how mathematical literacy in the western world is abysmal but it never fails to amaze me when I actually see it.
dude i know you're really stupid why dont you just admit to it?
math is falsifiable because math is supposed to be true, so if theres a contradiction that cannot be explained logically, the whole system has to be revised to take into account the conflicting data. math isnt a fucking political view where all math people ascribe to this and that, its purely functional and its function seems to work wherever it is applied. as opposed to some retarded idea an alcoholic made up that has a theorem composed of drunken thought disorder that literally doesn't have a single functional concept contained within it.
now lets get into my line of work. i didnt make this one though
if you cant figure out this puzzle your IQ is under 130 and you should never talk to me again -
2018-03-31 at 5:10 AM UTCSploo is so fucking pathetic lol
-
2018-03-31 at 5:11 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 5:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus math is falsifiable because math is supposed to be true
What do you think it mean for math to be "true"?so if theres a contradiction that cannot be explained logically, the whole system has to be revised to take into account the conflicting data.
Logical contradiction is not the same thing as empirical falsification. While generally we accept logical contradiction as a refutation of scientific theory we also accept empirical falsification. The same is not true in mathematics. There is no experiment that can be conducted to falsify a mathematical conjecture, and proofs are not "evidence" in the scientific sense.
Inductive and deductive reasoning is like phil 101 sploo. Even you should know this.math isnt a fucking political view where all math people ascribe to this and that, its purely functional and its function seems to work wherever it is applied.
Much of research mathematics has no application so I'm not sure what you think "purely functional" means here. -
2018-03-31 at 5:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Check this out, it's pretty fascinating:
Violence is Rare in Autism: When It Does Occur, Is It Sometimes Extreme?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223980.2016.1175998
Neurodevelopmental and psychosocial risk factors in serial killers and mass murderers
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178914000305
There actually does seem to be a strong link between serial killers, mass murderers/spree killers, and autism. Nifty.
I want to write about this one day from my perspective, based on my profound understanding of myself and ASD, why we're so over represented among these categories.
you know the hardest men i've known - they don't have autism.
. -
2018-03-31 at 5:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus
It looks like the shapes in the first row are rotating clockwise along a z axis in (45*n) degree increments. The movement of the non-vertical line in the third row follows this motion, covering and uncovering grey area as it moves out of alignment with the vertical line. If this is the correct pattern, that would make the solution e. Right? -
2018-03-31 at 5:29 AM UTCLol at how sploo thinks there is no disagreement within the mathematical community and everything is always black and white
-
2018-03-31 at 5:29 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 5:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by inb4l0pht It looks like the shapes in the first row are rotating clockwise along a z axis in (45*n) degree increments. The movement of the non-vertical line in the third row follows this motion, covering and uncovering grey area as it moves out of alignment with the vertical line. If this is the correct pattern, that would make the solution e. Right?
No it’s a -
2018-03-31 at 5:35 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 5:36 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 5:40 AM UTCa would just be a reflection along the y axis of the third row center. I don't see how it fits.
