"The Planck Length"

>"the absence of evidence is evidence of absence"

"some physicists believe....."

When I hear any of these I immediately close whatever pop-sci video I'm watching. Why did we tell the normies about quantum mechanics?

>there is only one human specie

>gender is determined by your chromosomes

if gender isn't determined by your chromosomes then why do the vast majority of people who are biologically male also happen to identify themselves as being male? Your move, brainlet.

God isn't real.
Checkmate, christian.

how does your reply even make sense as a reply to my comment?

Dunning–Kruger the thread.

I'm still waiting for his reply

>"Dunning-Kruger"

>long dash

>"IQ

See
Now back to /ic/ with you

Nice try brainlets, but it's perfectly clear you're all sub-190 IQ sub-humans.

>Vast majority
Your own comment implies that chromosomes don't fully determine gender.

So we agree that gender is not a social construction, right? That is, gender is heavily determined by your genes, even though there're outliers?

did you just determine causation from a correlation?

>correlation
explain to me the cause of the correlation then

>tfw 189 IQ
>tfw I will never understand Rick and Morty without that last IQ point
I can't even think of a clever way to kill myself.

>"I don't understand the limitations of the statistical method"

so you don't have an answer, right?

Are you fucking retarded? I'm telling you that just because there is a correlation does not mean there's a causation. You ask me then what's the cause of this correlation, and I tell you it's hard to know because the conclusions one can draw from statistics are limited. Stop being such a fucking idiot, you self-entitled prick. Please never actually study any science, you would do a great disservice to whichever field you choose.

>Are you fucking retarded? I'm telling you that just because there is a correlation does not mean there's a causation. You ask me then what's the cause of this correlation, and I tell you it's hard to know because the conclusions one can draw from statistics are limited. Stop being such a fucking idiot, you self-entitled prick. Please never actually study any science, you would do a great disservice to whichever field you choose.
cringe

Suck my dick brainlet.

I'm going to ignore all the name calling.
We can determine the gender of other species based on differences in chromosomes but somehow humans are special, aren't we? Just look at how retarted is the idea that animals can choose their genders while at the same time their genes ''want'' to be passed on. I also love how you think I wouldn't be a good scientist when you deny basic biology.

Gender is just a matter of semantics. You want to call gender a social phenomenon, just define it as such. You want to call it a biological phenomenon, be clear that this is the definition you use. The debate is trivial. The problem in your argumentation is that you take 'gender identification', a social phenomenon, and argue that because it correlates 'biological gender', the latter is caused by the former. I'm saying that you don't have grounds to make this leap of reasoning with nothing more than a correlation. There could be other reasons why biological gender and gender identification correlate, which could all be biological, could all be social, or could be an amalgamation of both.

*the former is caused by the latter

>There could be other reasons why biological gender and gender identification correlate, which could all be biological, could all be social, or could be an amalgamation of both.
show me evidence that this is the case.

I'm not the one making positive claims here. All I'm saying is that the conclusions you are drawing are unsubstantiated. The burden of proof is not on me.

>when you bait some retards into "arguing" with each other with a stupid comment

It is not just a positive claim. It is a rational conclusion derived from the scientific method

...

>at the centre of a black hole

>varg gif saved on computer
this tells me everything I need to know about you

That's not a "gif".

Get back to your containment board.

>constant "is exponentially larger than"

>your entire argument is wrong because you used one logical fallacy

>TREE(3)

I find
>le grahams number xD

to be worse

>Rayo's number

>i cant into limits

>"entropy"

That's actually true though. Your argument is wrong if you use fallacious reasoning, but your conclusion may still be true. The fallacy fallacy consists of assuming that because an argument is fallacious, its conclusion is false.

>Time travel

Kill yourself

>t.

um if we could like chillax with the homophobia that would be super cool

What's homophobic about asking another man to suck your dick?

>t.
I'm gay

the size of your dick

>gender is real

You have to go back

>"Multiple Worlds Theory"

I like to imagine it's the same guy making all these brainlet wojaks.

>"atoms never actually touch"

>Image
Lost it. Reminded me of the beginning of Cat Soup.

"String theory"

>"Mathematically assuming that the universe is a hologram"

>"more variation within than between"

Lol.

>Banach-Tarski paradox

>consciousness

Nice troll lol

just because they are dumber, look different etc doesnt mean they are a different species. we are still able to bread with them which makes them a different race

We were able to breed with h.neanderthal either but they are not the same specie are they.

Part of my inner /pol/ would like to think that a neanderthal had mated with a proboscis monkey that gave birth to a lineage that would ultimately become the modern day jew, explaining their massive noses.

>The 2nd law of thermo...

They are a true work of art, I'm honored to live at the same time as a person capable of this

>"free will isn't real"

>particles

>Loader's Number

>Zero gravity

You dare insult the Big Headed One?!

>the cat is either dead and alive at the same time

nice tumor faggot

why the homophobia?

why the homophobia?

You'Re a soyboy, aren't you.
>gibbe da boipucci fag :)

No, not at all. I just think debates about gender are trivial given that each side of the debate defines the term differently. I also prefer to talk about my research rather than waste my time discussing identity politics. Define gender however you like, it doesn't change anything about either biology or sociology. The debate is on both ends fully political, not scientific.

>You'Re

wow, aren't you eddy!

>gif

>[math]\Delta E \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2} [/math]

Why did you post a picture of a white man?

>global warming

I agree with this. Gender can't be on a spectrum if it isn't real :^)

> >global warming

>> >global warming