63 points

But it’s the physicists’ job to find this stuff.

permalink
report
reply
48 points

Yeah, it’s not like the mathematics lost any of the numbers. Get your shit together physicists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

I mean mathematicians are still missing over 99.999% of prime numbers, so…

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

They haven’t even found more than two factors, one of which is one, for any prime number, either.

Get it together, Mathematicians.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

, or ℙ for short.

I think that should be all of them, but if you want to check, there are references on the website where we keep all the numbers detailing how to check any number, or to list all of them if you want an arbitrarily large pile or have infinite time on your hands. :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The technical term you’re looking for is “almost all” prime numbers. Not joking btw.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

Well they did demonstrate that in a non trivial system of axioms, there will always be true statements that are unprovable. Do they kinda accepted that they will never be able to find everything. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Well, either they can’t find everything in that system, or they can also find something that contradicts something else that’s true.

It balances out, because while there’s infinite facts they can’t prove, there’s also infinite lies they can prove.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

it’s not like the mathematics lost any of the numbers

show me Pi then

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

🥧

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I know exactly how to find it, and unless you’re a mathematician I’m not sure you’re authorized to know.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Dunno. Find me an i in the wild.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Whoa there, if you want it’s physical location you’ll have to ask a physicist, they’re in charge of tangible things.
Otherwise, just take a turn perpendicular to the reals, or check in the platonic realm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

More astrophysicists

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
34 points
*

Political Science is the study of political systems and behaviours employing the scientific method. It’s a sub field of social science and a very new one, at less than 150 years old. Political philosophy is of course much older.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

employing the scientific method

Really? They have control groups? Blind and A/B testing? Hypothesis that they set out to reject?

I’m sure they have methods but are they scientific?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

The answer to all your questions are

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes - Whatever goes against my political allegiances.

Yes - They all just have an n < 50.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Hey genius, if you need experimentation in order for a field to be a real science, then explain how astronomy is a science.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You make those claims without ever having looked into polisci studies. Not really looking to reject your own hypothesis.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

it should be a sub field of sociology instead of science.

Sociology isn’t called social sciences, though arguably you could call it that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I think sociology is part of a field called “The Social Sciences” which includes sociology, psychology, polisci etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s mainly called social science in my country.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Yea computer “science”? Bitch you mean programming?

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points
*

Depends. A proper computer science course is basically math with machines. At the highest level, it may have zero programming at all, and the machines in question are entirely abstract.

Software Engineering is, well, engineering (setting aside the whole debate on what makes a “real” engineer).

It used to be that universities crammed both under “computer science”, and you had to look at the curriculum to figure out which one they were actually teaching. They tend to separate the two more clearly these days. Neither is really “science” in the strictest sense, but the term stuck now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

math with machines

so computer engineering?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That’s why informatics is by far the superior term. Computer science is such a boring terms anyways, you don’t call maths “number science”, biology "living beings science " or chemistry “atoms science” either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

All of thoose are different. Computer science, computer engineering, software angineering and informatics are all different conceptually

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

My geophysicist friend laughed at me for a little long when I said “I’m a computer scientist”.

I never took that degree/job position or whatever seriously anyway. I’ve always giggled at software engineering too. I just call myself a programmer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

One is your education and one is your job. It’d be like me chirping someone with a geophysics degree who’s working at Starbucks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Yeah, polisci has gotten as far as the “observation” part of science and kinda has to stop there for moral reasons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

Same with Astronomy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

What’s voodoo about political science?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

“Real” scientists try to put a spin on it akin to “You can’t properly hypothesise, reason or make predictions about anything based on a sample size of ~200 countries that are totally outside of your control and are very different from each other”. Few more arguments get thrown into a pot.

Doesn’t stop political scientists from mostly accurately describing things, so no harm is done here. The harm lies within pushing that opinion on general public, highlighting the that “proper” scientists don’t see any value in social “sciences”, hence contributing to public ignorance about societal problems.

And with how lousy political views of “rational”, “logical”, “critically thinking” people in STEM sometimes are, it’s awfully ironic.

Speaking as a disgruntled Russian STEM scientist who is horrified how willingly some of his collages ate Putin’s reasons for actions both against Ukraine and within Russia, including against fellow scientists (WTF, where’s professional solidarity?!).

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

That’s pretty much where I was going. What are soft sciences supposed to do when experimental methods are either impractical or unethical? Give up?

If anything, fields like physics are in a privileged position where they can do the scientific method to the letter. Acting snooty about it is simply insulting and unhelpful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

All the zombies

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

only a self inflated STEM-oid would take a joke in the OP and use it to delegitmamize an entire field of science based on vibes

having a BA in physics doesnt make you able to disprove social sciences, dont be like bobby fischer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
57 points

To be fair, political scientists probably don’t know where 95% of the politics is hidden either.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Trick question, all politics is local.

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

Sure, physicists can just keep track of about 5% of the universe’s mass. That’s their whole job, and they just got 5%!? Are they stupid??

Who are you to complain Brenda?! The only thing you keep track of is the amount of Oreos you have in the pantry

5% of the universe is still several trillions of tons of mass! Although I suppose a good part of that is your fat ass!

permalink
report
reply
25 points

Several trillion tons of mass? I think you’re off by many orders of magnitude.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

You’re right.

Earth itself weighs about 7 sextillion tons.

Sextillion in the short scale being to the 24th power while trillions being only 12th power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Thanks for the correction. I was blinded by my hatred for Brenda. I was sure I was off by a lot but I couldn’t bother looking it up at the time

permalink
report
parent
reply

Have they tried looking between all the couch cushions? Those tend to hide a lot of stuff.

permalink
report
reply
4 points
*

Actually saying that socks and remote controls can sometimes turn into something that doesn’t interact with the EM force would explain a lot.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science Memes

!science_memes@mander.xyz

Create post

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don’t throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.6K

    Posts

  • 118K

    Comments