What's the selfish gene equivalent of math/chemistry/ph

>>8400353
Fuck off >>>/trash/

popsci is popsci

>>8400362
>has probably never read the book
>believes if he echoes the opinions of retards who've disguised themselves as intellectuals enough their perceived intelligence will eventually rub of on him.

Brainlets these days.

>>8400382
Have you read the book faggot?

File: Required Reading.png (3MB, 1360x2765px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1360x2765px

>>8400385
>>8400395

If you want to learn, you should be reading introductory textbooks. If you just want to pick up big words in order to sound pretentious then go back to >>>/reddit/.

>>8400382
Whats wrong with popsci? I fucking love reading about science in a way that doesn't bog itself down with details. I use the details when I'm at work, in my spare time I like to appreciate the bigger picture.

The only people that have a problem with popsci are autists who think that they are superior to other people for knowing things about science, and dislike it when non scientists discover these things.

Why do so many people dismiss books that they've never read?

File: rule-34.jpg (31KB, 640x563px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x563px

The book is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation. A whole lot of climax that doesn't really lead anywhere.

...I think I hear Dawkins calling. go back to your sex dungeon and pleasure him for another night while you scream words like "precocious" and "indubitably" while taking it up the intellectual ass; and ask him to tell you more about how he is so smart while you deep-throat is "extraneous" cock and bollocks. you faggot.
make sure to take pictures and post.

>The book is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation. A whole lot of climax that doesn't really lead anywhere.

I hope you recognize that this is an opinion, and a retarded one at that.

>>8400484
prove me wrong with an example. then I will admit fault.

>>8400436
Because the title is dumb and the author is literally r*ddit

>>8400435

>Whats wrong with popsci?

Popsci is, in general, garbage. That's what's wrong with it. Most of the time, you're either learning nonsense or nothing at all.

You're not appreciating a bigger picture in so much as you are appreciating a fictional one. Its value can be in getting people excited or interested in a field and should encourage you to want to actually want to learn something about it from a proper resource.

>and dislike it when non scientists discover these things.

we dislike it when nonscientists THINK they've discovered these things.

>>8400501
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+selfish+gene+pdf

>>8400505
>dismissing a book because you don't like the title and the author

Way to out yourself as a brainlet.

>>8400558
very well. I apologize for the misinformed shit-spewing.

>>8400553
>Most of the time, you're either learning nonsense or nothing at all.

Have you ever read a decent popsci book? All the good ones are referenced and written by acclaimed people in the field. Richard Dawkins is a professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, if you think the things he has to say have little value, you are deluded.

>You're not appreciating a bigger picture in so much as you are appreciating a fictional one.

Fictional how? Is all of science fictional?

>we dislike it when nonscientists THINK they've discovered these things.

why? they'll emerge with a greater understanding than before they read it, even if they don't fullt grasp the concept yet. if you think there is no value in having a public interest in science, you are again delusional.

>>8400625
Stop worshiping Dawkins

>>8400625

eat shit

meme science brainlet

File: disagreement-hierarchy.jpg (92KB, 679x516px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 679x516px

>>8400640
>>8400655

literally no counter arguement

File: 1431297646887.png (864KB, 800x703px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 800x703px

>>8400672
>reads a 40 year old book that's half euphoric fiction and half outdated theories
>complains that no one finds it relevant

It's not even a good primer science education for the normies like the manga guides.

I read the selfish gene in high school
It was remarkably impressive how dawkins managed to take barely four pages worth of actual content and stretch it into a full-length book