Science

[thethingthatlurks]

Fool! Do not antagonize Insano! He shall destroy you, with SCIENCE!!!

Bah! MDs do not frighten me. I've met mad sociologist scarier than him. Now bow before my science, lest I send my monkey brain robots after you! Or my giant ray gun...yeah, I've been meaning to test that on humans...

 

[beniki]

fuck science, where are all the flying cars, aliens, and cyborgs you promised me? and what about long distant space travel, a cure for male pattern baldness, anti-aging pills and the colonization of other planets. as far as i can see science needs to shut the fuck up and get to work. it's like a 40 year old man, jobless and living in his parents basement. every day science is like I'm going to get a big boy job and move out, but then all it does is eat hot pockets and play w.o.w.. where the fuck is my fucking holodeck Mr.Science. science with all your white coats, beakers, and "theories" i have yet to see a hoover-board under my feet so chop chop ************ its 2010, my car still runs on gasoline, and we know more about whats on the surface of the moon than what exists in the deepest parts of our own oceans.

But hey, you got an iPhone right? They're nifty.

Right?

...

:'(

 

[Prince Regent]

Real Science is awesome, but I suck at it. Hence why I hose a degree in social and politcal science! Sociology has the same suffix as Biology, so it's totally legit!

[sub]If I repeat it enough, it will become true.[/sub]

Social scientists are welcome too, as long as you have at least a passing interest in "Hard" science.

 

[subject_87]

fuck science, where are all the flying cars, aliens, and cyborgs you promised me? and what about long distant space travel, a cure for male pattern baldness, anti-aging pills and the colonization of other planets. as far as i can see science needs to shut the fuck up and get to work. it's like a 40 year old man, jobless and living in his parents basement. every day science is like I'm going to get a big boy job and move out, but then all it does is eat hot pockets and play w.o.w.. where the fuck is my fucking holodeck Mr.Science. science with all your white coats, beakers, and "theories" i have yet to see a hoover-board under my feet so chop chop ************ its 2010, my car still runs on gasoline, and we know more about whats on the surface of the moon than what exists in the deepest parts of our own oceans.

...Is that sarcasm? And in any event, things like Star Trek really play fast and loose with physics. And electric cars exist, but there isn't suitable demand or infrastructure for them to be popular. If you want that to be the case, purchase one and help.

 

[Skorpyo]

So, the Escapist finally has it's own lab now?

'Bout time. I've always enjoyed the occasional physics discussion around here.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

Intriging. I might join it soon/later. For now, Science - Garrys Mod style.

Spoiler

 

[Naheal]

Science! Religion's mortal enemy!....just don't say that on the religion and politics board.

Yo.

Religious mathematician, bro. Nothin' wrong with studying creation.

Does that mean you are open to all theories?
or are you just closed shut when someone mentions Darwin.

Theological evolutionist. The universe was created by a divine being through the Big Bang. From there, the laws of physics and nature took their course. Darwin understood reality and creation via evolution, which is so close to fact right now that it might as well be a law.

The only difference I have with a typical atheistic scientist is what caused the Big Bang, but physical evidence takes precedence. A good parallel would be between Newton and one of his colleagues (I forget the name) who were viewing the water table. Newton viewed it as gravity pulling the water table wrong while his colleague viewed it as the atmosphere pushing the water down. One ended up being correct, but they couldn't prove who was at the time.

 

[hittite]

Fool! Do not antagonize Insano! He shall destroy you, with SCIENCE!!!

Bah! MDs do not frighten me. I've met mad sociologist scarier than him. Now bow before my science, lest I send my monkey brain robots after you! Or my giant ray gun...yeah, I've been meaning to test that on humans...

Witness the might of Insano!

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Fuck you Schroedinger.

His cat is dead, you know.

Meh, that's just a mad MD. See the stethoscope? He's like Frankenstein, harmless. Now, a real mad scientist...well, as a mad scientist myself, expect ray guns and robots with monkey brains doing my bidding...

So, as a mad scientist, you do have a hypothesis, right? And a research question? An experimental procedure? A repeatable way to gather data?

Without those, sir, you are nothing more than a mad engineer, and are a shenanigans.

OT: It's great that there's a science group now, but you shouldn't make a thread solely to pimp it out. Seeing as I mostly came in here to question why Lauren Admire's weekly "Science!" columns stopped running, and then found two people to playfully jab, I do beleve I shall be taking my leave.

Also, is troll science applicable to the group? If so, then:

Spoiler: Troll Science

[/science]

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Meh, that's just a mad MD. See the stethoscope? He's like Frankenstein, harmless. Now, a real mad scientist...well, as a mad scientist myself, expect ray guns and robots with monkey brains doing my bidding...

So, as a mad scientist, you do have a hypothesis, right? And a research question? An experimental procedure? A repeatable way to gather data?

Hypothesis: Experiments of the effectiveness of a ray gun in public spaces will result in a decrease of subjects for subsequent experiments.
Methodology: 1) ray gun testing will involve blindly firing into a crowd and ascertaining the damage later on, assuming more than a bunch of ashes remain.
2) Upon depleting the subjects, the location will be changed to the next largest population center. Should the ray gun prove ineffective, revisions to the design will be made. If the design works, more testing is needed.

(yes, I've actually written real proposals...)

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Meh, that's just a mad MD. See the stethoscope? He's like Frankenstein, harmless. Now, a real mad scientist...well, as a mad scientist myself, expect ray guns and robots with monkey brains doing my bidding...

So, as a mad scientist, you do have a hypothesis, right? And a research question? An experimental procedure? A repeatable way to gather data?

Hypothesis: Experiments of the effectiveness of a ray gun in public spaces will result in a decrease of subjects for subsequent experiments.
Methodology: 1) ray gun testing will involve blindly firing into a crowd and ascertaining the damage later on, assuming more than a bunch of ashes remain.
2) Upon depleting the subjects, the location will be changed to the next largest population center. Should the ray gun prove ineffective, revisions to the design will be made. If the design works, more testing is needed.

(yes, I've actually written real proposals...)

Good, good. Except now you don't have a control group. And no, "the people I am not firing on" is not an acceptable control group.

And there's also the issue of having your experiment replicated and verified by other groups of scientists. Oh, wait, now they're all dead.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Meh, that's just a mad MD. See the stethoscope? He's like Frankenstein, harmless. Now, a real mad scientist...well, as a mad scientist myself, expect ray guns and robots with monkey brains doing my bidding...

So, as a mad scientist, you do have a hypothesis, right? And a research question? An experimental procedure? A repeatable way to gather data?

Hypothesis: Experiments of the effectiveness of a ray gun in public spaces will result in a decrease of subjects for subsequent experiments.
Methodology: 1) ray gun testing will involve blindly firing into a crowd and ascertaining the damage later on, assuming more than a bunch of ashes remain.
2) Upon depleting the subjects, the location will be changed to the next largest population center. Should the ray gun prove ineffective, revisions to the design will be made. If the design works, more testing is needed.

(yes, I've actually written real proposals...)

Good, good. Except now you don't have a control group. And no, "the people I am not firing on" is not an acceptable control group.

And there's also the issue of having your experiment replicated and verified by other groups of scientists. Oh, wait, now they're all dead.

Ah, but this is a quantitative experiment, hence no control group is needed.
As for reproducibility, have you ever been to a science department at a major university? They're all raving lunatics, and we'll happily jump at the chance to uhm "repeat" this experiment with the physics department.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Ah, but this is a quantitative experiment, hence no control group is needed.
As for reproducibility, have you ever been to a science department at a major university? They're all raving lunatics, and we'll happily jump at the chance to uhm "repeat" this experiment with the physics department.

No, no, you still do. How else would you know if your method is the most efficient? You're also still changing variables in city size and population density (two variables changing in the experiment? FOR SHAME). I do believe a control is in order.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

How would a group that isn't being laz0ard help determine whether or not my ray gunnin' is effective or not? In such quantitative experiments, we use a calibration curve or standard addition for quantification. In this case, various cities will suffice for the former, and any fellow mad scientists for the latter. Since the results will be reported in shots/person, the variables of the cities are irrelevant.
Science, it's fun!

 

[insaneHoshi]

Science! Religion's mortal enemy!....just don't say that on the religion and politics board.

Yo.

Religious mathematician, bro. Nothin' wrong with studying creation.

Does that mean you are open to all theories?
or are you just closed shut when someone mentions Darwin.

Theological evolutionist. The universe was created by a divine being through the Big Bang. From there, the laws of physics and nature took their course. Darwin understood reality and creation via evolution, which is so close to fact right now that it might as well be a law.

The only difference I have with a typical atheistic scientist is what caused the Big Bang, but physical evidence takes precedence. A good parallel would be between Newton and one of his colleagues (I forget the name) who were viewing the water table. Newton viewed it as gravity pulling the water table wrong while his colleague viewed it as the atmosphere pushing the water down. One ended up being correct, but they couldn't prove who was at the time.

OH your one of those people, Just an fyi, science is defined as being testable, how can one test for a supreme being?

 

[SturmDolch]

I'll join. I'm in the Faculty of Science at my University, specializing in Computing Science. I'm terrible at physical sciences but I like to think that I'm good at the applied ones. Mad respect for all you biologists and chemists... I can't tell the difference between an alkane and an alkyne without Wikipedia.

 

[Naheal]

Science! Religion's mortal enemy!....just don't say that on the religion and politics board.

Yo.

Religious mathematician, bro. Nothin' wrong with studying creation.

Does that mean you are open to all theories?
or are you just closed shut when someone mentions Darwin.

Theological evolutionist. The universe was created by a divine being through the Big Bang. From there, the laws of physics and nature took their course. Darwin understood reality and creation via evolution, which is so close to fact right now that it might as well be a law.

The only difference I have with a typical atheistic scientist is what caused the Big Bang, but physical evidence takes precedence. A good parallel would be between Newton and one of his colleagues (I forget the name) who were viewing the water table. Newton viewed it as gravity pulling the water table wrong while his colleague viewed it as the atmosphere pushing the water down. One ended up being correct, but they couldn't prove who was at the time.

OH your one of those people, Just an fyi, science is defined as being testable, how can one test for a supreme being?

I'm sorry, but, what? Are you saying that the moment that anyone begins to look at science at all that they have to discard their religious beliefs?

Edit: Removed a point that would be confrontational. Apologies to the quoted individual.

 

[insaneHoshi]

Science! Religion's mortal enemy!....just don't say that on the religion and politics board.

Yo.

Religious mathematician, bro. Nothin' wrong with studying creation.

Does that mean you are open to all theories?
or are you just closed shut when someone mentions Darwin.

Theological evolutionist. The universe was created by a divine being through the Big Bang. From there, the laws of physics and nature took their course. Darwin understood reality and creation via evolution, which is so close to fact right now that it might as well be a law.

The only difference I have with a typical atheistic scientist is what caused the Big Bang, but physical evidence takes precedence. A good parallel would be between Newton and one of his colleagues (I forget the name) who were viewing the water table. Newton viewed it as gravity pulling the water table wrong while his colleague viewed it as the atmosphere pushing the water down. One ended up being correct, but they couldn't prove who was at the time.

OH your one of those people, Just an fyi, science is defined as being testable, how can one test for a supreme being?

I'm sorry, but, what? Are you saying that the moment that anyone begins to look at science at all that they have to discard their religious beliefs?

Edit: Removed a point that would be confrontational. Apologies to the quoted individual.

No i just hate people Saying creationism is a science, if that is not your belief, my bad

 

[Naheal]

Science! Religion's mortal enemy!....just don't say that on the religion and politics board.

Yo.

Religious mathematician, bro. Nothin' wrong with studying creation.

Does that mean you are open to all theories?
or are you just closed shut when someone mentions Darwin.

Theological evolutionist. The universe was created by a divine being through the Big Bang. From there, the laws of physics and nature took their course. Darwin understood reality and creation via evolution, which is so close to fact right now that it might as well be a law.

The only difference I have with a typical atheistic scientist is what caused the Big Bang, but physical evidence takes precedence. A good parallel would be between Newton and one of his colleagues (I forget the name) who were viewing the water table. Newton viewed it as gravity pulling the water table wrong while his colleague viewed it as the atmosphere pushing the water down. One ended up being correct, but they couldn't prove who was at the time.

OH your one of those people, Just an fyi, science is defined as being testable, how can one test for a supreme being?

I'm sorry, but, what? Are you saying that the moment that anyone begins to look at science at all that they have to discard their religious beliefs?

Edit: Removed a point that would be confrontational. Apologies to the quoted individual.

No i just hate people Saying creationism is a science, if that is not your belief, my bad

It's not. Theistic evolution is simply a divine spark idea. We don't discount science, because to do so would be idiotic. The only difference between a theistic evolutionist and an atheistic evolutionist is simply the presence of a being at the beginning to get the ball rolling so to speak. As of yet, it's unprovable, as (correct me if I'm wrong) the cause of the initial Big Bang that created the universe as is unknowable and untestable at this point. We're creeping up on it (THANK YOU, CERN!), but we're not there yet.

Creationism is "God created us from dirt and the world in 6 days". Which is flatly stupid and an insult to everything that I study.

 

[meticadpa]

In, I love science. Mostly physics and chemistry, but I do have an interest in hormones and cells in biology.