How true is this?

>How true is this?
well, from looking at de grass tyson and his peers id say not true at all

>What you consider "books" are actually just compilations of opinions. Fuck that. I have my opinions and I would not ever pretend like I am so important that my opinions need a book compiling them so that the would could know them. Humanities people are also very self centered in this aspect. They actually think... we give a shit. They think we give a shit!
i full on agree. i never get why some people think their thoughts are so interesting that they need to publish them

and of course you are right on the mathematic books. atm reading about partial differential equations and love every page of it though its in parts hard as fuck

Not true at all. Just look at Richard Dawkins.

The problem with you people who mention Neil Tyson, Bill Gay the science gay and Richard Cuckins is that you do not factor in that they are now not just "STEM" guys.

They are public figures. Their public figure status now probably makes more income than the work they do as scientists, IF they still do work in science.

They are celebrities and weak people with no purpose in life who have nothing better to do care about celebrities' opinions so what can a celebrity do but feed their fans?

I've seen Bill Nude the science dude on TV talking about climate change even though he is an engineer. Obviously he is stretching here but think about it. He is one of the few science dudes that people know and/or care about. If he does not talk about climate change then who will?

He also has a record of being a good speaker so obviously you would pick him over some random climate scientist who has never done public speaking in his life.

I think it is time we stop considering Richard Hawkins, Bill Duck the Science Cuck and Neil Byson as scientists and more as celebrities.

>stem
>literally autistic brute forcing of a very tiny, particular subject

>humanities
>literally requires information and viewpoints from the whole of humanities in each subjective viewpoint

Keep thinking you're smarter than everyone else because you tinkered with one thing for ten years. ;)

Category Theorists
>spends ten years drawing pictures of arrows and calling them "proofs"
>consider themselves qualified to generalize all aspects of mathematics
I always knew they were up to no good. Especially once they started calling everyone else "evil".

Go check out African science man's top 10 booklist and his descriptions of each book to really get a good idea of his authority on all subjects.

Too fucking true. I feel like a brainlet outside of my field of study but a Psych major classmate I had tried talking biochemistry/psychiatry to me.

Oh, categories theorists. My favorite kind of people. You know, they aren't bad people. They are just very nostalgic for their high school days. Back when in math class a drawing of a couple of lines and labels counted as a "solid argument".

They just want to go back. Back to simpler times.

Spot on. Although famous STEM people also have a tendency to speak beyond their profession.

Black science guy, michio cuckold etc.

cant you read? He's saying that no finite or precise method can accomodate all posible scenarios, and that science has been done historically over many different "methods". Again, its against Popperian method

Physicists also pretend they can model anything Feyerabend (or even Kuhns book fully), and it's decades old, but I'd be glad if more science and engineers would step back and see the scientific method for what it is, and science in a context. Sam Harris is very conventional in terms of his interpretation of science and has some good things to say on being reflected (however, he has an agenda and possibly condescending way of talking)

t. physicist

I never read

where were you when you realized the scientific method was originally proposed by a philosopher?

>being this much of an autist
chill m8

The same can be true of anything on the right then making the entire comparison meaningless.

This reminds me of a story from my Intro. to Mythology class.

First day the professor is giving his spiel, and at one point says "So, the research that we do in the Classics department is actually the most important research we do at this university", and I really loudly barked a laugh. A large group of people, including the professor looked directly at me hahah

I feel bad about it now because he actually ended up being a really cool guy, but come the fuck on. You're gonna tell me your research is more important than the bio lab that's sponsored by the Michael J. Fox foundation for their progress in Parkinson's disease? Or more important than the literally world-leading computational chemist that works on alternative fuels? Fuckin get over yourself.

Everyone talks about things they don't know about.

Just look at /pol/, it's 90% neets talkng shit like they actually know.

it was obviously a joke, retard. you just laughed to hard

>Obviously was a joke
>I wasn't there, and have no idea what I'm talking about

Alright, buddy.

you sound kind of autistic my friend

Shilltard losers still butthurt about the world ?

it's the same thing in most scientific fields as well…

mathematicians are the only one left. when someone studies, say, representation theory, well, he probably doesn't know the world exists outside of representation theory.

>WE WUZ SCIENCE AND SHEEEEIT
Every scientist is a philosopher but not every philosopher is a scientist

I majored in history and as I was facing either working at mcdonalds or being unemployed, I decided on going back, even with severe economic limitations, and take another degree, this time at STEM, computer science.
What I realized, being in these two worlds, is the already acknowledged subjectivity there is in humanities that can make any imbecile who is half sure about what he is talking about seem like a very erudite person. What I learned in that field of social sciences is that if you keep your cool while discussing, and if you use the extended vocabulary you often acquire from reading hundreds of stuff, you can seem like you are a great wise guy.

>my go-to political insult is the implication you've been paid to disagree with me
Never change, /pol/

Karl Popper was a philosopher, take your stale /pol/ memes and pls go and stay go

yep, there are certainly very intelligent people in humanities, but it's very hard to tell because it's too easy to pretend and get away with it. Lots of charlatans.

Did you even read what I said?

no, sorry, i don't consume garbage

You sure seem to love exuding it.

You got BTFO, stop trying to save face and return to your homeland, you are an unwanted immigrant here

Dude you're just shitposting now because I used a WE WUZ meme and didn't even read my comment. Stop posting any time

You too.

Both disciplines tend to do this a lot. Bill Nye for instance has a BSc in mechanical engineering and considers himself qualified to lecture people on politics and the origins of the universe

>I guess you start hallucinating when your poverty wage can only pay for half the calories you need a day.

Got a good laugh from this

I think both disciplines generate self righteous assholes who feel that they are above everyone, and hell, considering how much you learn in academia it's not that hard understand why. However, I find that when asked about science literacy in the humanities the general response is that they don't need to know about that shit and they find it boring. I find it quite hypocritical if you take into account how many unis force STEM students to take shitty intro courses with butthurt power-hungry assholes who are just clenching their ass to contain the words
>You know, science isn't always right. It's just another dogma like religion.
Fucking hell, it's like they cum whenever they hear themselves say that. Obviously if something so superficial and exoteric is useful for us, it shouldn't be so hard to accept that math beyond retarded statistics classes and basic calc. I think the obvious answer is that we should expose everyone to why at least trying to get an education in different topics will get you far ahead in the intelectual ladder. However, while I still see alot of STEM people reading philosophy/literature/ history and the like, but I still have yet to find someone in the humanities that opens a proper textbook and start studying.

This.

Righteous assholes exist on both sides because of the sunk cost bias. At least in STEM if you can get BTFO by results of experiments/instrument whereas in the humanities literally nothing ever dies. Everything exists in a perpetual universal stasis with each idea as arguable as the one before it.

t. arts major

just admit that liberal arts majors are tards that think they know everything because they took 3 sociology classes in college

You should reread what I wrote friend.

The guy on the left studies SUSY representation theory, nothing to do with solid state physics.

I see the point you're trying to make but I really don't think that there's anything wrong with giving your opinion on everything, even your opinions about subjects that you aren't very educated in

...

>Posts on Veeky Forums
>Can't even understand a structured text

Somebody which studies humanities has to know a lot of different fields (history, philosophy, literature, politics, social sciences) to do his work, while a scientist only has to know his own field. For example, a molecular biologist doesn't have to know how a mass spectrometer works, while a good historian must know some economics, sociology, literature and so on, in order to study a particular historical period.

*who

molecular biologists do use mass spec, you dingus

Yes but some of them don't know how they work.

This is why a philosphy of science class has to be mandatory for every STEM field.

>Kuhn

He was a trained historian as well as a physisist, he was probably one of the most qualified people to ever speak on the subject

This is completely wrong. At least in engineering.
The more variety of topics you know, the better your ideas can be.

>implying stem undergrads don't do the same shit

Talk to a pre-med, I dare you

>muh scientists are untouchable

Engineering is by definition the application of scientific knowledge, so it is necessarily a multidisciplinary field. This is not always true for "pure" science. I'm not saying that all scientist don't know any other field, but that this knowledge is often not strictly necessary.

Also someone whl studies anything in STEM?

But it is. Heck engineering is the worst example because they just cherrypick and never expand on their knew tools. A scientist has a rango of skills from all STEM subjects. Heck, even the dumbest biologist has some understanding of software and how to use it.

Emphasis on the SOME. I worked with living tissue but I'm really a physicists by training. I have some understanding of biology from the past, that doesn't make me an expert. The key here is what your specialization is. Obviously you can talk about other shit, because your knowledge of the topic will be way above average, that doesn't mean you should claim mastery over certain shit.

What I meant to say is that a scientist that knows some other fields is certainly a better scientist, but that sometimes this is not the case.

But that is mostly the case if you get a PhD that is a good rule of thumb for when one is a scientist.

What's your general opinion on women?
Just curious.

I agree.

lmao, you're clearly the same guy who was making an idiot of himself in that thread, I can tell by your post formatting. Stay mad.

/thread

...

Meh. I'm a math major, but I would consider my friends in the humanities to be smarter, more eloquent, and have more knowledge on a wider variety of topics than I do.

I mean, I could kick their ass in math(I was top in all my math classes last semester), but they would destroy me in a general trivia competition. Also, they tend to be a lot more sociable and likable than my fellow math majors, but that's all just anecdote.

DING DING

pack it in boys. thread's over

Based on this post alone, I would consider you a dumb math major. Not a genius who does math because he's smart, but rather a dumb person who happens to be okay at math from studying.

>thinks falsification in the sciences means making a fact not fact anymore
>thinks further testing a principle means not testing a further principle that's dependent on that first one
>thinks ad hoc hypotheses are forbidden in the context of ad hoc experiments
>thinks inconsistent results would be more appropriate for methods designed to find approximate results

Does he say anything about case studies? How about astronomy and mathematics and other things we don't/can't test with the mentioned scientific method?

Yeah, I think I'm pretty dumb as well. I try to do smart things, but I always end up feeling pretty dumb(probably because I just am). I mean, I can speak Spanish, French, and I know a bit of ASL. I also try to read academic books that aren't related to my field, but I'm still not on par with some of my friends. Perhaps they're just outliers, though.

Anyways, I think what I said about people in the math/science fields being less sociable/likable is true according the responses this thread. Lots of pent up anger.

>Only scientist can speak about science

But user, the scientific method is extremely dialectical. The pomos take aim at it for exactly this reason.

Science is, like, literally Natural Marxism.

Have you never met someone with a science degree?

Based on this post alone, I'd consider you a dumb nihilist. Not a philosophical nihilist who built the conclusion logically, but rather the standard INTJ personality type who gets off on the fact that since he can't matter, no one can.

Mathematics is 100% fiction, impossible without Human Symbol.

>you can't actually know anything

There is almost no one, famous or otherwise, that said anything close to this. It's usually tangentially mentioned in some major Philosophic works in regards to Materialist sperglords and your utter failure of gaining insight into anything at all.

Also:

>scientist to do list
>meaningless material formalities that would change nothing

Discover the secrets of that feeling in your throat after reading this comment.

This book is about mathematics and also is by the author of Alice in Wonderland. It has an element of sardonic humor.

Is it a 'technical book' or a 'theoretical' work?

Where does the idiocy end? I read mathematical and economics texts all the time. Either one of these can be almost completely words based like "Theoretical Arithmetic of the Pythagoreans" by Gerald Massey or absolutely filled to the brim with propositions and postulates like any work that is Elements-esque

Yes, but that opinions validity and value to most people is predicated on the fact that they hold a PhD, not what the PhD was in. It's like asking a master plumber about medical advice, yes they know a lot about shit going through pipes, but that's not going to help you with your IBS.

I agree with one part of this. People go insane for Nye when he has a bach. in ME. The reason they put him at the front is because the generation of minds they are trying to conquer learned their basic science from him and think he's an authority.

>your utter failure of gaining insight into anything at all.
Come now user, if you take even a utilitarian view of "truth" you know as well as I do that's simply not true.

>There is almost no one, famous or otherwise, that said anything close to this.

Pyrrho and the classical Skeptic tradition.

Nihilism and Existentialism deny the existence of truth to the extent that nothing meaningful can be 'known'.

The attitude does exist, and it hampers progress.

Philosophers are the smartest people though.

Ethics is the only course where no matter how hard I studied, thought, read, I still couldn't ace simple multiple choice tests

I still look at Hume from time to time and wonder how the fuck is there 4 types of moral skepticism? And artistotle's tree, what really is his point?

This shit makes even the most convolution science seem trivial in comparison

Some books are meant to share ideas and to confront you with a different way to look at a situation. By reading a book about humanities, you'll always win because it will either give you an insight on something you didn't know or confirme your former idea on the subject. Just chill down faggot.

I feel like this is the same thing with in the STEM field. Sure, if you speak about "basic" science stuff and tell non-sense, people will notice. But if you start talking about the application of quantum dots in biochemistry, I'm sure only a few people may have counter arguments for you.

The problem with humanities is that things are not as intuitive as in the STEM field, even on the basic levels. This make bullshitting a lot easier

Pre-med here, what's so special about me? If you're implying I'm a walking textbook, I am... But I garuntee you I still know fuck all about medicine.

Nah, it's pretty much the opposite, there's a reason why overestimating the breadth of your expertise is sometimes considered "Engineers' Sydrome".

>black STEM man
>implying serious historians are a) the same as people who study things that end in "studies" and b) not worth listening to about history and human nature

You seem like a pretty smart guy, don't be so hard on yourself.