Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1184. page

>>8494960
>>>/b/

>>8494961
>>>/x/

>>8494960
You are now breathing manually

>>8494628
>producing videos about math without rigour seems kinda pointless.

>Trigger warning, highly concentrated autism

The whole thing is a pointless endeavour desu. The picture they present of science is nothing but a caricature of the subject, highlighting results-and bizarrely social struggles of the day-yet none of the practice. What this has done (and I'll admit that it's not the only offender, but it is the most recent) is present a picture of science as bringing some from of certainty, which we all-hopefully-know it doesn't. No, science is quite uncertain about it's results, but it and it's practitioners know this and are able to quantify that uncertainty to give some meaningful result.

I think that this approach is ultimately harmful, it's creating an audience that [math] believes [/math] in a result instead of understanding that the result is only accurate to within some limit. And I think that we can see this issue of people believing in certainty in, most prominently, the global warming "debate". People believe that science brings certainty, so when someone challenges that belief with simpler narratives, simpler explanations, those same people start to gravitate towards those explanations.

What I'm trying to say is, we have created a population who have no understanding of how science actually works, but whose misconceptions about the subject are being reinforced on the one hand (by programmes like Spacetime) and then exploited on the other.

"Knowledge or certainty" from Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, says what I've tried saying here in a much more elegant way.

>>8494684
>Trigger warning, highly concentrated autism
Well you definitely weren't wrong.

Thing is, we're talking mathematics here, where we deal with absolute certainties, so you should post that pasta somewhere else.

File: 1433477063827.jpg (39KB, 476x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 476x600px

>a casual mentions Numberphile

>>8494350
I want to say something with radar and lasers. But that's probably over complicated, read about how surveyors work.

>>8494350
Measuring the heights between the laser communication towers used for financial transactions between Chicago and New York hedge funds would probably yield results for you.

>>8494350
Pick a city with high buildings on a lake (like Chicago for example) and photograph one of the towers from some point across the lake. The tower will appear to be cut off. You can easily determine the exact position of the cut-off, and your distance from the tower (using maps and plans of the tower). From this you can probably pretty precisely calculate the curvature of the earth.

>>8493615
That depends entirely on how they were engineered.

>>8493615
It entirely depends on the nature of the inserted gene sequences.

If we are talking about simple intra-species genetic engineering then probably not if the gene has a a reasonable distribution throughout the human subpopulations.

If it is inter-species or more complex sequence engineering then yes, it would be easily identified as a foreign gene because it's sequence is completely different to any other in the genome catalogue.

The reason for these explanations is that most of the differences between individual humans are single nucleotide polymorphisms. So seeing a large section of DNA that is very dissimilar to any other known sequence identifies it as a foreign gene. This is also assuming that these traits were inserted in an area of the genome under some form of sequence conservation in order to preserve the genes function in later generations.

>>8493741
>>8493831
that's interesting. can someone explain and simplify the method of engineering? when I was creating the OP, I was from the perspective that the babies would be "designed" at conception through vitro fertilization, screening, and some type of genetic engineering?

This is unrelated but can vitro fertilization screen for height and IQ? If that's possible, couldn't someone wait until the perfect sample is selected?

>>8492871
I'm impressed. But I'm not telling you about what.

>>8492874
Is it because I'm a strong independent woman who don't need no boyfriend to do my math?

>>8492871
Bruh, why are you wasting neurons on this?

The real probability is just around 10% of dubs, 1% of trips, .1% of quads, etc.
Also the most important factor here is how fast is this board as well, check these trips

>>8492617
stop posting

>>8492617
Sauce on pic related is Keijo!!!!! before anyone asks

You should be able to get out more, socialize, do some sports and go see some movie and get outside more
Not that hard but the hardest part is up to you to leave that addiction

>>8492617
you can't

>>8491855
what do you mean desu senpai?

>>8491870
If scientific method/experimentation can cause a relative coincidence. I believe it can but not universally.

>>8491978

i do believe that does happen in experiments if you mean a false positive. or something insignificantly significant.

>>8491441
Explain what a super massive black hole is and what quantum tunneling is and I'll tell you.

>>8491469
I'm genuinely not sure whether this is a rhetorical question or not.

>>8491441
What would happen if all matter and energy in the universe quantum tunneled into the same spot all at once?

>and please dont anwser this was just a rethorical question

File: 1468804093112.jpg (14KB, 188x181px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 188x181px

>>8491135
>They laugh and Perry starts to jump like a kangaroo as he leaves, imitating a pilot-wave

>>8491135
I really hope this is true

I'm in tears right now

>>8491135
>Shit that didn't happen
Pics or gtfo
>>>/tumblr/

quantum memesics

>>8495076
QM predictions are correct

>>8495063
Everything in the theory of physics works fine

The problem is making it all fit with observed reality

It's a sign of being cooked that is true for a majority of foodstuffs

You have phrased the question improperly.
No outcome is "genetically wired". We have form that allows behaviors other forms do not allow.

You can ask if from a random selection of humans from various backgrounds, do they choose foods that are brown over other colors.

This tells you nothing about biology or genetics, or about humans into the future, but it does tell you about the probability of behavior of the current population.

>>8494812
No, I for example hate Niggers and Latinos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoneda_lemma#Proof

>>8494811
what are any of the things in the OP

>>8494822
C is a category
C^op is the opposite category (formally reverse all the arrows)

Set is the category of sets
F is a functor

h_X is the functor sending an object to the set of morphisms from that object into X

Who?

>>8494799
Dude, if you want to pull off that joke choose someone else.
I mean, Hooke's Law. Geez.

>>8494789
Pretty hard considering the amount of specialist lab equipment you need for most research in the sciences. Plenty of researchers are multidisciplinary now anyway

Your statement: Powerpoint is bad
Your argument: Because I don't like it!!1

>people are shit at putting together presentations
>therefore ban the program they use
PEBKAC

>>8494697
Powerpoint is a neat program actually. I wish more people in physics would use it reasonably.

The worst presentations I saw were usually done in LaTeX. It's okay to build lecture slides in LaTeX, but Jesus fuck, not slides for a talk. Nobody likes your ugly wall of text and formulas slides. Nobody wants you to stand there reading the slides out loud. Nobody cares about how exactly you derived some random formula. And why is every slide half empty?

>>8494694
>Watches some sci-fi where biology-genetic stuff looks cool
>I want to become a biologist!

People who base their decisions on a TV show don't know what they are getting into.

File: breitling-galactic-44-watch.jpg (112KB, 618x800px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 618x800px

>>8494708
Forgot to mention pic isn't related, it was either that or pic related and I went with that, sorry.

why would u want to study biology?