Yeah. I like science. I'd imagine everyone here does, considering the technology we're all using to communicate.
Do you like science?
- Thread starter Necator15
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah. I like science. I'd imagine everyone here does, considering the technology we're all using to communicate.
I pretty much love physics. Physics is the love of my strange life. Anything odd about it, unexplained things, hard to explain things. Its just all so terribly exciting. I just wish I was better at it, like, good enough to pass the exams XD
In order to truly be a 'skeptic', one must properly understand what they are being skeptical about, in the case of science, high school science wouldn't even begin to cut it. This is why we have a world full of YE creationists. There's a huge difference between an informed skeptic and an uninformed denialist.Eqan Asif said:
I love physics. Nothing special, just basic physics.
Rube Goldberg machinations are too much fun.
Rube Goldberg machinations are too much fun.
Some fields of science are mildly interesting to me(Explosions and fire mostly), but I would never become a scientist.
But I do congratulate those that do.
But I do congratulate those that do.
Very hard to replay to your post without making any generalizations, but please excuse me if I do; and also keep in mind that those will be nothing personal--even if they seem so.Pokenator said:
In any case, I things it's a linguistic point you are arguing with me: I gather that you don't "know" (of if you do, it's barely any) about what Humean scepticism is all about. Humean scepticism is epistemological scpeticism--that humans don't "know" anything, and our "knowledge" exists only in fleeting moments of experience. Now since that is clear, it my help us come to an agreement, however, on the subject of me being a "creationist" is an assumption you have made. I'm not a "creationist," but if you must put me through an arbitrary labeling machine then the proper term would be that I'm an "Agnostic," but even that doesn't cover it---for here I adhere to Nietzschean perspectivism.
And btw, please explain to me the difference between an "informed" and an "uninformed" sceptic? I'm afraid I've no idea what those two terms mean.
I love the theories and ideas, but when it comes to technical stuff, I can't do it. I'm just not that good at it.
My PhD research focused on a fungal toxin called restrictocin; it's theoretically rather deadly under the right circumstances, and we wanted to better understand how it works. Not earth-shattering, but interesting enough.Necator15 said:
Now I'm primarily working on finding better ways to treat liposarcoma. Much more interesting, and potentially much more valuable.
Chemistry will always be my favourite, not just because we got to set stuff on fire but because it was just so interesting, learning why things happened just fascinates me. Though the coursework was always my downfall.
I do have a soft spot for medical science but to be honest I learned more during my short medical physics topic than any biology I've done. I just wish I could have done something on genetics.
I do have a soft spot for medical science but to be honest I learned more during my short medical physics topic than any biology I've done. I just wish I could have done something on genetics.
I love biology, with the coprolites and the interferons and the supraesophigeal ganglion and the Citrobacter freudii and the blastocoels and the Cambrian Explosion and the Mannital salt plates and the gram staining and the prions and the sinistral shells and the Hardy-Weinberg Equation and the...
*Record scratch*
*Record scratch*
I've found it difficult as a subject in school, but I see its value. Also, you can get away with anything if you yell "For Science!!!"
I love biology if that counts. I'm not very into the chemistry part of science, and the other parts are okay. I just don't have much interest in it.