Why the fuck do we waste our time with theoretical science that

brainlet detected

>>8403080
Anyone can imagine some fantasy shit that will never proven right in your lifetime. Working on practical solutions is a million times more difficult.

Scum like you is the reason we will only fuel science fiction bullshit instead of improving things in our lifetime.

>>8403086
Remind me, how many papers have you published? What exactly is your experience in research that has caused you to form this opinion? Do you even have an undergraduate degree?

>>8403088
You're talking to one of the leading researchers in cockroach milk. Remind me what kind of science fiction idea you stole and published as your own for those easy facebook science gains.

>>8403070
Why waste time drawing blueprints for a car? Its all theoretical! A piece of paper with drawings on it isn't a tool to help you build a car with!

>>8403086
wait you're slandering theory?

the fuck?

>>8403102
Do you actually read any journals? Science? Nature? Do you actually know what the hell you're talking about or do you just read popsci bullshit?

Reminder that the theory that the brain works like a computer stagnated brain research for at least two decades. Even really high tier scientists believed this and wasted years researching new possibilities on that base. Fuck theorylets.

>>8403070
Fuck these shills. I agree with you OP, hype is the bane of progress. I see exactly where you're coming from. All talk, no substance. Worse yet, these people are being paid to do absolutely fucking nothing. All this shit about renewable resources yet normies are still allowed to fuck with combustion engines, hell, in modern lifestyles you're REQUIRED to have a combustion engine to live, or even simply get a date. You're required to support companies that pollute the earth and poison the food supply. Fucking astounding. Meanwhile, humans think theyre so smart yet they still end up in wars and starving to death...its fucking retarded. People are retarded and they try to convice themselves that they aren't. But they're fucking useless. USELESS. HATE. HUMANS. ALL TALK. NO WALK. HATE THEM. HATEEEE. WRYYYYYY.

>>8403070
General relativity wasn't "practical" either, but it gave us GPS. Same thing with QM, etc. Most of the practical developments we have now couldn't exist unless somebody developed the theory for it first.

File: 1363606173846.gif (1MB, 325x320px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 325x320px

>>8403070
>We talk daily about the brain as if we know how that shit works but we barely know anything about the brain.

Stopped reading right there.

>>8403070
Many of the most important scientific theories we put to practical use these days were considered philosophical masturbation when they were conceived.
Even Einstein didn't think GR would ever be of practical use, and now look where we are.

>>8403575
>>8403591
Retarded examples since modern science is completely different and not even remotely close to science in the past. Today this would never happen since everyone already thinks of a million potential uses. Our expectations are also ridiculously high at the moment. Our expectations are already thousands of years into the future. In the past our expectations were backwards or a few decades into the future at best. Such expectations make sense and help practical solutions out.

Science is not pure as it was once. Nowadays scientists hype things up and overpromise all the time to get those funds and recognition they desire.

While in the past simple concepts were imagined to be impossible we have it backwards now and think about impossible concepts to be possible. That's because no one wants to be realistic this days and thinks science is some magic bullshit that makes everything possible.
>>8403589
So you are the guy who explains us the brain every day in every threads but know jack shit about it. A priori fags should be fucking gassed on the spot.

>>8403070
Well, for each student who studies theoretical math/science, there's a one in a million chance that they will turn out to be a genius and make a huge breakthrough. Everyone else is a failure with no skills who works at Starbucks for the rest of their life. If you're a rich elite who runs the country then it doesn't matter how many people you sacrifice to Starbucks because that one genius will create massive wealth for you and for the country. You don't go to school "for yourself".

>>8403742
This is the wrongest approach in the world. Instead of focusing on numbers and luck we should change our approach to raise the ratio of geniuses trough improving the system. The reality of the matter is that those millions of useless fucks aren't even used correctly as stepping stones.

What we have now is just an automatic process with no effort at all put in. We are at the mercy of higher natural selection instead of changing things with our own hands.

What is it that you posted this nonsense on? Some sort of computing device I assume. Must have been magic that conjured it up right? Are you some sort of Harry Potter Fan Boy?

>>8403759
How retarded can one man be? There is no base theory that was developed decades before the invention of the first real one to create a computer. If anything the process of computer technology was heavily trial and error and step by step with concepts that were immediately put to use.

That's honest and how it should be instead of wasting time on science fiction.

>>8403070
>he fell for the pop sci hype of muh mars muh brain muh cancer muh singularity
Serves you right, the reason the big institutes hype up bullshit is because people like you fall for it and the government feels good for pouring money into it. Newsflash: they don't believe it either

>>8403070
>all i see is pop-sci, so i will asume that everything we do i is pop sci and nothing is useful

learn to search
learn to avoid popsci
learn to sci

learn to stop being faggot sperglord, brainlet frogposter

>>8403779
t. someone that never worked in any research field

>>8403784
Pop-science has literally nothing to do with it. Do retards like you actually have anything of worth to say instead of shitting out buzzwords?

>>8403785
Nah but my field doesn't hype anything. Some colleagues of mine work on the human brain project and they don't even hide that the results will be plentiful, but none of the crazy simulation stuff that was hyped in the beginning will happen

>>8403591
in this way math is like internet memes. math and theoretical physics are 4chan and engineering is reddit.

t.physics grad who regrets not studying engineering

>>8404018
and biology is facebook: you hate us but we get fucking laid.

we are the grey goose to your homebrew ethanol

>>8403070
So we can come up with unique and nuanced perspectives to impress hot girls with.

Experimental chemist here, my perspective:

1. Theoretical work is incredibly valuable provided it can spur experimental work. The Marcus Inverted region is a fantastic example of a theoretical prediction bearing fruit through experiment, and now is cited frequently to explain why electron transfer (doesn't) occur.

2. Perhaps less ambitious: well-established theory can be used to quickly patch gaps in experimental knowledge that would otherwise be cumbersome if not ludicrously hard to obtain. A handful of calculations, with proper benchmarking, can save hundreds of calorimetry experiments (i.e. man-hours and material) and provide serviceable data.

>>8403070
When you start solving an equation you dont know the value of x but can still solve it.

Because, dear freshman, you learn 90% of the relevant physics and maths in 4-5 years. Congratulations, now how do you spend your next ~ 50 years until death?

>>8403070
b8

File: 1436383541694.jpg (14KB, 716x724px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 716x724px

>>8403624
>So you are the guy who explains us the brain every day in every threads but know jack shit about it.

I know enough about the present state of brain research to determine that you're a phi major future fry cook, ruminating over MUH HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS while my onion rings burn.

I'd tell you to gas yourself, but you're almost certainly sitting in a cloud of your own methane exhaust at this exact moment, so I'll sidestep the redundancy...

>>8404746
>sitting in a cloud of your own methane exhaust at this exact moment
Brainlet detected.

File: 117897979890.jpg (37KB, 394x479px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 394x479px

>>8404980
>Brainlet detected

Good comeback.

You're as dull and uninteresting as your whiny thread.

>>8403624
>Retarded examples since modern science is completely different and not even remotely close to science in the past.
And how would we've known if we didn't try that in the first place?

>>8404746
Hey, bruh, there's a phi major doing a PhD alongside bio majors and MDs.
No way in hell he would spout the luddite, short-minded bullshit OP is shitting out.

>>8403070
With that sterling exposition you have done here, you'd be extremely lucky to even comprehend the title of anything relating to tractography. Because were you at least a smidgen more documented about advances in neurology, you'd know there are practical problems being actively addressed with the very same thing you're criticizing.
And guess what - it works. So far we've refined DTI (now practically obsolete) with models like CSD which once were, you know it, THEORETICAL!

>>8403755
And how do you propose to "raise the ratio of geniuses"?
There are many countries and their schools actively trying to dish out competent scientists of a myriad of disciplines, not just workerbots for a big pharma.
But you believe there is a way to significantly increase the value of a dependent variable affected by n independent variables, in an inherently non-deterministic model.
Fine by me, but you'll be falling within the very thing OP is criticizing. And in the not-so-off chance you are OP, that would make you a hypocrite.

what exactly are you fucking saying here? that we shouldn't spend time researching anything that we might think of as useless? how the fuck are we supposed to know if it is useful? how many theories did we discover in the past and thought of them as useless, but ended up being a big deal for some fields?

what the hell is wrong with you? who hurt you?

>>8403070
>theoretical science that is not practical
>bcoz we know what is practical
Lrn2practical fgt pls

>>8404033
what are you doing here then

>>8404033
the only way you're getting laid is if I decide I'm tired of your mouth, faggot

>>8405058
>comeback to smug anime equivalent
What comeback did you expect for your nonsense? You're a burger flipper with dunning kruger, nothing more to see here. This is the content of your entire posts. Did you seriously believe you posted anything of worth?

>>8403070
Theoretical Science can find practical usage later.
Algorytms have been created before computers existed.

>>8405626
This far into the thread and people still suggest step by step theoretical science when the thread is about next generation/s level science. Seriously 90% of the thread is criticizing me for hating on theoretical science in a general sense. Get your reading comprehension in ordner, brainlets.

>>8403070

Theoretical approach to science is not a problem.

The problem is that people build careers in academia and have to publish results, thus the current world of academics is filled with professors and doctorates that have not contributed anything relevant at all.

As a mathematician you see this all the time, esoteric theories that look more like exercises in construction of mathematics than anything real.

Obviously a lot of great work is being done in many fields, but I also feel like the above is a huge problem especially in mathematics.

File: download.jpg (6KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x168px

>>8405634
What does it have to do with my argument.

>>8405659
Algorithms are a fundamental concept and not a hypothesis for a futuristic vision.

>>8403070
"""""Theoretical""""" science is just a containment field for autists.

>>8403070
>Why the fuck do we waste our time with theoretical science that is not practical in any shape or form?

Like what?

>>8405705
Google:

"scientists find.. could this be.."

>>8405716
So, retarded journalists?

>>8405725
Come on how can't you have heard tons of this shit already?

De-extinction is one of the latest ones. Generally most of the tedx bullshit is like this.

>>8405730
>De-extinction

What's so bad about this?

>>8405736
Science circlejerk with no practical solution.

>>8405740
By practical solution, you mean plans for implementation? Why is that a bad thing?

>>8405745
It tackles problems that are several steps ahead of us. Instead of taking on the most logical next step they think first about the result they want to achieve without any real base for it to be possible, only to waste tons of resources and manpower to research something without a sufficient base and proof of concept. This is a borderline scam like all those mars projects.

>>8403070
Science journalism does not represent science

>>8405791
You would be surprised how wrong that statement is.

>>8403070
Do you even know what theoretical science is? I think what you're talking about is "Speculative sceince" which isn't even science

>>8405827
It's part of theoretical science.

Stop fucking circlejerking that term because you associate it with something unrelated to the thread. It was clearly explained what was meant.

>>8405833
>Stop fucking circlejerking that term because you associate it with something unrelated to the thread.
What term? And how is it unrelated to the thread?

>It was clearly explained what was meant.
I can't be arsed to read your thread, can you summarise it for me?

>>8405873
No get the fuck out. Don't talk to me or my thread ever again.

>>8405881
fuck you too, homo phaggot