/sci/ - Science & Math

If the universe is expanding then we can hypothesise that it had a beginning

>>15445118
Conversely, if you observe your obese roommate losing weight, you can surmise that he was once of infinite size.

>>15445118
>linear interpolation
weak

>>15445104
Good quote and true, Thorstein Veblen was penning "The Theory of the Leisure Class" about the same time Twain was quipping that quote

>>15447177
Veblen's academic work on how shitty academics are is somewhat ironic when viewed from a distance, but its still a great book

>>15445104
He should stick to short stories about dead cats that come back as ghosts.

>>15445635
I lol'd

>>15445104
Good quote

>>15447690
I haven't read all of his books but I liked "Roughing It" the best.

>>15445104
"Science" and grandiose delusions go hand in hand unless the scientific method as defined by Francis Bacon is applied rigorously

>>15445104
That guy is just bitter because he got bad returns on his investments.

>>15451971
His last surviving descendant died in 1962, in a hotel room in Los Angeles, of a booze & pills overdose. His genetic line has vanished for all of eternity.

>>15445635

>>15452699
Why did jews hate him?

>>15454805
I don't know, but Rudyard Kipling's genetics suffered the same fate.

>>15455122
pure coincidence

>>15445104
>In which specific areas of science does it ring true?
evolution

>>15457153
evolution is definitely an enormous conjecture based on only small amounts of observation

>>15459406
The timescales involved make the theory virtually non disprovable and therefore not science. Evolution is not a genuine scientific theory, its academic/atheistic dogma disguised as science

>>15460756
The scientific method is a Christian belief, it was developed entirely by and for Christians. Atheists like Darwin are not capable of applying the scientific method, they are not intellectually mature enough to heed those rules.

>>15445104
This is correct in reference to the mainstream accepted theories in how they get shoved in your face since youth despite so many being very wobbly or literaly guesses. But I don't think the establishments accepted theories or Unis' and their obvious bias should make you have anything against the scientific method or the pursuit of discoveries at all.

>>15461643
conjecture and the scientific method are practically opposites

>>15451965
is this why scientists refuse to research the grandiose delusion phenomenon?

>>15464692
>is this why scientists refuse to research the grandiose delusion phenomenon?
They willfully ignore their own confirmation biases in favor of the happy fantasy that they're super special geniuses.

>>15465585
that seems like the most likely explanation for the lack of research, most scientists are emotionally fragile nerds

>>15445635
The reverse of that is completely true, at some point in the past your formerly thin & presently obese roommate did not exist

>>15445104
Good quote and completely accurate. Scientists hate the scientific method and uniformly refuse to follow it. They prefer making wild guesses and insisting they're right and ignoring all conflicting evidence

>>15469177
scientists follow the scientific method, sºyentists follow the sºyentific method

>>15445104
Its a good quote, conjecture isn't science, but the know-it-all who call themselves scientists still can't resist spouting off when they know that they shouldn't. Most scientists are too low IQ and emotionally fragile to follow the scientific method, its a sad fact, but thats the way thing are.

>>15465585
>grandiose delusion phenomenon
I researched this as a Phenomenologist, and it's ties to my Developmental Psychological, Evolutionary Cognitive and Environmental Genetics research.
>they're super special geniuses
I am, yes, and thank you for noticing.
[blushes and fixes hair]

>>15469987
>scientists follow the scientific method, sºyentists follow the sºyentific method
sºyentists lividly hate the scientific method and ostracize those who follow it from their profession

>>15469987
good infographic

>>15445104
Recall though that Twain also said, "I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts." He was a humorist, a fabulist, an entertainer...

>>15460756
>The timescales involved make the theory virtually non disprovable and therefore not science.
This is incorrect.
Time scales for the evolution of fast-reproducing organisms allow evolution to occur rapidly enough to be observed.
The fossil record records the process -- if it had not occurred, the fossil record would look very different.
You could argue that Darwin's explanation of HOW evolution has occurred is unprovaeble, I suppose, but the fact that it has occurred is pretty well proved.

>>15472916
>Time scales for the evolution of fast-reproducing organisms allow evolution to occur rapidly enough to be observed.
Prove it.

>>15461582
>The scientific method is a Christian *Astrology
the thing that every astrology is the same with just different names and cultural memes glued to those names.
It predates recorded civilization.
>it was developed entirely by and for Christians
retard

>>15445118
The visible universe, like our sun, is pulsating.

>>15473218
Source?

>>15472916
thats just your confirmation bias. you can't think up any other explanation because you're an uncreative npc thats been brainwashed by "education" and now you see everything through the lens of your schoolbooks.

>>15472900
And definitely a champion of rationality and progress, for his time.

>>15473225
what do you think causes solar cycles?

>>15473190
you don't know what scientific method is

>>15474663
ignorance is the power behind all namefags

>>15463446
Conjecture is the necessary first step of the scientific method though. You need to make a hypothesis before an experiment

>>15445118
No because if you say it doubles every certain unit of time and call now 1, once you find the size and try to half it and find the beginning, you will never actually reach any 0 point.

>>15467679
Nope, same thing, he will never weigh 0 by dividing his weight over time.

>>15445104
I think you are misinterpreting the quote, I think he is saying that fairly simple discoveries like Ohm's law for example, can lead to huge returns of experiments and applications even if they don't completely understand exactly why it all works, but find some kind of natural relationship between some natural elements that can be exploited.

>>15452699
So how many more generations did he get than your dead end existence?

>>15475336
so, germ theory of diseases is one huge conjecture

>>15472918
Darwin did that in his time with his finches which is why his theory of evolution caught on in the first place.

>>15473824
You don't even have anything that confirms your bias except a bunch of nonsense questions and appeal to antiauthority.

>>15476020
If it were still just conjecture without evidence, you would be calling it the germ hypothesis rather than theory.

>>15476026
You are ignoring all the controversy over Wallace's independent research

>>15476033
You are ignoring that documented history has gone on long enough since then to see numerous dog breeds emerge through guided selection following Darwin's lead and studying all the methods he used in his aviary to breed specialized organisms.

>>15476042
evolution is such a fake theory that it needs to protected from debunking by academia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Collins
>Collins studied biology at The University of Sussex, where his tutor was the leading theoretical biologist John Maynard Smith. In 1975 Collins voiced to Maynard Smith the view that natural selection could not drive evolution because it always acted to reduce variation in favour of an optimum type for any environment, whereas the central story of evolution was that of increasing variation and complexity. Collins quoted Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species ("... unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing."),[3] and argued that if variation must always occur before natural selection can act, then variation, and not natural selection, drives evolution. He asked Maynard Smith whether he could search for a "strong" theory of variation. Maynard Smith warned Collins that he could not support his efforts to pursue a rival theory to the theory that natural selection drives evolution. Collins replied that he thought the object of science was to question and examine everything, including hallowed theories such as the theory of natural selection. Maynard Smith asserted that, on the contrary, the strength of science was its capacity to agree on certain principles, and act collectively to pursue agreed aims. This difference of view with his tutor made Collins give up his scientific career and pursue other interests instead.

>>15471057
>Most scientists are too low IQ and emotionally fragile to follow the scientific method
The scientific method was developed by and for Christians, atheists are not capable of following it because atheists are not capable of being truthful.

>>15477261
>what is change in the environment itself

>>15476042
you're ignoring that all those dogs are still the same species and are all completely capable of breeding with each other and producing fertile offspring.
no evolution of species has taken place, only evolution within species

>>15445635
ideal woman

>>15479004
Good point, no divergence of species has ever been observed to take place

>>15480024
you can breed dogs as much as you like, make them as weird as possible, they will still always be dogs.
darwin's book is titled "On the Origin of Species"
not "On the Origin of different kinds of dogs"

>>15480779
>darwin's book is titled "On the Origin of Species"
>not "On the Origin of different kinds of dogs"
lol

>>15476026
Were Darwin's finches capable of interbreeding?

>>15482666
Yes, and in fact they've never speciated. Beak size genes are present across the entire population and ebb and flow with resource availability.

>>15482671
so then they aren't different species

>>15475973
We do get to a certain point. To the first trillionths of a second of the Big Bang.
At that point physics quite literally breaks. Formulas and universal constants change then and, as far as we can tell, that's as far as it's possible to ever get, because as I said, none of the formulas work anymore.

There was a moment when physics settled to the properties it has now. Why these specific properties? Who the hell knows.

This is the fact, so where's the theory? You can take it out your arse at this point and it's fair game because nothing makes sense lol. Scientists can brainstorm but this seems to be one of those "known unknowns"

>>15483773
Correct. Darwin was simply mistaken about his results because he relied on outdated taxonomic methods.

>>15484112
>We do get to a certain point. To the first trillionths of a second of the Big Bang.
when you says "we" you mean people other than yourself, so why include yourself with them by using "we"? taking credit for other peoples work is intellectual property theft. you've never done any if that research and you don't know how to even get started at it, you learned about it on the black soience man tv show, so stop acting as if you were a participant when you were not.

>>15445104
>based on very little observation
Of course it's based on observation. How do you think scientists came up with the big bang in the first place? They looked at patterns in the CMB (cosmic microwave background), which show a very large universal inflation early on in its history.

>>15484112
>We do get to a certain point.
That wasn't the claim, the claim was that you would inevitably reach a beginning, not some arbitrary point between the beginning and now where you just give up and call it good enough acting like you found a beginning anyway.

>>15484651
Like how we have seen your parents and what losers they are, so we all know you are just a pissant loser too without ever actually needing to see you in person?

>>15484671
Ah yes, here we have an example of /pol/ tard when they're exposed to the truth, it hurts their peabrain. Perhaps have you considered that just because something hasn't been laid out for you at a kindergarten level, doesn't mean it's false?

>>15484651
you have no idea what you're talking about

>>15484651
>patterns in the CMB (cosmic microwave background), which show a very large universal inflation early on in its history.
Explain how you can detect acceleration from a single data point

>>15485335
You did lay it out in kindergarten terms, you are just wrong and the analogy perfectly demonstrated why.

>>15486730
Because reasons

>>15484651
>How do you think scientists came up with the big bang in the first place?
they got the idea from the book of genesis

>>15488831
Universe, uni verse, literally means the word which is genesis term for creation in the beginning.

>>15482671
So the finches aren't even experiencing divergent evolution, they're just converging at different rates on different islands

>>15489835
I think they just learn to eat what their beaks are suited to eat.

>>15488848
interadasting

>>15488848
I always thought the work university was pretentious as fuck because it claims to be a microcosm of the universe
I still think that, they should just call it "remedial training school for unemployable adults"

>>15482671
so is there any evidence anywhere of different species having evolved from a single species or is there only evidence of slightly different looking groups of the same species having evolved?

>>15445104
>in what other ways does science create such massive conjecture out of very little evidence?

literally ALL scientific theories are just conjectures
go read pic related

>>15492504

>>15492501
According to Darwin's theory, humans from different parts of the world should have evolved to become different species and should no longer be mutually fertile, so how come White Australians and aboriginies can still have kids together?
Reality - 1
Darwin - 0
Soience loses again, why is all soience so incredibly fake & gay

>>15489835
They're not converging or diverging or anything. All those beak size traits are conserved through the generations, and the relative prevalence of one or another size is based on environmental conditions.

>>15493661
>the relative prevalence of one or another size is based on environmental conditions.
which of course never change. derp

>>15489977
Do their feeding habits affect the environment on their island? If they develop a beak to focus on eating one particular food, then eventually that one food is going to become less plentiful and the finches will then start developing beaks that are better for different food sources.

>>15477261
>implying that evolution is finished

>>15495660
>implying that evolution as described by darwin ever got started

>>15493651
>According to Darwin's theory, humans from different parts of the world should have evolved to become different species and should no longer be mutually fertile
Wrong. All living humans are only a few tens of thousands of years separated from eachother, and different species can interbreed. Polar bears and brown bears can interbreed and their offspring are entirely fertile.

>>15492501
A new species of finches formed a few decades ago on an island because a single finch of a species that lives miles away on a different island got blown over by a storm and had sex with the local finches, and the hybrid offspring had weird calls that made the local finches not have sex with them, so they had sex with their siblings instead. New species in one generation.

>>15484651
> How do you think scientists came up with the big bang in the first place? They looked at patterns in the CMB (cosmic microwave background), which show a very large universal inflation early on in its history.
No. The existence of cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted by cosmic inflation cosmology and discovered AFTER it had already been proposed and started gaining acceptance.

>>15496273
Evolution as described by Darwin is already observable in real time in microorganisms though.

>>15496815
no it isn't

>>15496815
Divergence of one species into two that are not mutually fertile has never been observed

>>15498566
and it never will be, because darwinian evolution is a false narrative thats kept alive via peer review collusion and similar dishonest tactics, it is not defensible on a scientific basis

>>15499717
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1979.tb00027.x
>the tympanic membranes and the tympanic processes of the stapes in recent mammals, reptiles + birds. and frogs. are not homologous;
>the evolution of “special periotic systems” in the ancestors of amphibians and amniotes were independent events
>the amphibian tympanic membrane. probably including that of labyrinthodonts. is not ancestral to that of amniotes. and that labyiinthodonts with an otic notch are not suitable as amniote ancestors

Just a friendly reminder that there is no proof that vertebrates evolved from amphibians and that the fossil record does not support the scenario of some random fish-lizard crawling up on land and suddenly evolve lungs out of nowhere.

>>15499717
>it is not defensible on a scientific basis
it never was, its just a conjecture. a scientific theory must include the element of disproavability and darwin conveniently overlooked that

picrel is what happens when someone decides to believe in darwin

>>15502307
Darwin predicted that

>>15445104
He was able to figure that out having never heard of ridiculous soience fantasies like dark matter and black holes

>>15445104
He left out the part about motivated reasoning, those idiotic conjectures scientists invent all have a purpose, mainly getting money or political influence for the scientists

>>15505158
>motivated reasoning
they keep up on coming up with new terms for dishonesty that allow them to say someone is lying without using the term "lying". We've got "replication crisis" instead of "outright fraud" and "motivated reasoning" instead of "lying".

>>15502307
>Darwin said it
>I believe it
>that settles it