NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there are many science supporters on NSG.

However, I have written five reasons why science sucks in this article (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/top-five-reasons-why-science-sucks.html).

I wonder if you agree with my views (especially people who are doing science now, like Bottle for example).

But...but...science students must have more hope than humanities students, because that's what everyone tells me! They're always attempting to ram that supposed fact down my throat, anyway.

;)

With regard to number 5:
MSc in Exploration Seismics, you're looking at a starting salary of £50,000 heading upwards. That is at the cost of your soul, obviously.

I'm looking to get my "laurea magistrale" (kinda master's degree here in Italy) in Physics next year, so I think I qualify as a "sciency" guy.

#5.Who cares about the shiny new Honda? I just want a blackboard and some chalk to write equations. I drive a 16-years-old VW Polo and it gets the job done. The state gives me a huge calculus centre and some scientifical instruments.
I need lasagne and deep-fried sausages to keep me alive, and a lot of coffee to keep me awake.

Huh, sorry, gotta get back to work, will finish my answer later... bye for now.

But...but...science students must have more hope than humanities students, because that's what everyone tells me! They're always attempting to ram that supposed fact down my throat, anyway.

;)

How much "more" hope? The difference is probably... academic.

Lawyers and Bankers rules the world. Always have, always will be. :(

You're bitter at 'wasting your time' doing science... erm... I see.

What level of science degree did you get?

A clue as to how much "wonderfulness" an occupation in the sciences would be is summed up, pretty much, in the phrase:

Scientists DO Science.

How does one DO science, when science is not a verb, but a noun.

It's rather like DOING a "horse", to substitute in another noun, for instance.


If you don't want a tedious, worker-as-machine-cog, kind of occupation,.. don't go into science.

What did you THINK you were signing up for?

How much "more" hope? The difference is probably... academic.

Lawyers and Bankers rules the world. Always have, always will be. :(

'mmmhm. We're all equally screwed, really.

Well, less screwed than the people who decided not to continue an education of any sort (including an apprenticeship) and are stuck with a lifetime of menial labour guarding the doors of a department store, I guess. But still somewhat screwed.

You're criticising things that I would take to be fairly obvious about science. In fact, only two of those five are direct criticisms of science in itself - the others are criticisms of science as a career (lack of money, lack of job security, and 'where did my youth go?'). Surely before deciding you want a career in a particular field, you'd study that field to see whether it would suit you. If you had a look and decided you didn't mind the employment system or the financial rewards, you can't complain now. And if you didn't check it out, then you have even less right to complain.

Actually, 'Failure, Inc.' and 'The Devil is in the Details' are also both things that you should have known before heading off into the world of science. Sure, you can say that science sucks, but you've lost the right to complain, because you should have known all these things beforehand.

It's rather like DOING a "horse", to substitute in another noun, for instance.

I'd ask Catherine the Great about that. ;)

Yes, I know she's dead and that the story is apocryphal.

You're criticising things that I would take to be fairly obvious about science. In fact, only two of those five are direct criticisms of science in itself - the others are criticisms of science as a career (lack of money, lack of job security, and 'where did my youth go?'). Surely before deciding you want a career in a particular field, you'd study that field to see whether it would suit you. If you had a look and decided you didn't mind the employment system or the financial rewards, you can't complain now. And if you didn't check it out, then you have even less right to complain.

Actually, 'Failure, Inc.' and 'The Devil is in the Details' are also both things that you should have known before heading off into the world of science. Sure, you can say that science sucks, but you've lost the right to complain, because you should have known all these things beforehand.


Well... I did put a "comedy" tag on my post... ;)

But to be honest I was not aware of how bad the "Failure Inc." and "Details" aspect could be. It was a question of degrees.

A clue as to how much "wonderfulness" an occupation in the sciences would be is summed up, pretty much, in the phrase:

Scientists DO Science.

How does one DO science, when science is not a verb, but a noun.

It's rather like DOING a "horse", to substitute in another noun, for instance.


If you don't want a tedious, worker-as-machine-cog, kind of occupation,.. don't go into science.

What did you THINK you were signing up for?

I thought I signed up to join the Federation and tour the galaxy.

Service guarantees Citizenship.

Would you like to know more? :D

I know there are many science supporters on NSG.

However, I have written five reasons why science sucks in this article (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/top-five-reasons-why-science-sucks.html).

I wonder if you agree with my views (especially people who are doing science now, like Bottle for example).

In regard to your blog post.

There are almost always exceptions. Your statement that there are always exceptions is blatantly false, because you just stated there was an exception to there not being exceptions to always having exceptions.

In regard to your blog post.

There are almost always exceptions. Your statement that there are always exceptions is blatantly false, because you just stated there was an exception to there not being exceptions to always having exceptions.

:eek: *Head explodes*

I know there are many science supporters on NSG.

However, I have written five reasons why science sucks in this article (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/top-five-reasons-why-science-sucks.html).

I wonder if you agree with my views (especially people who are doing science now, like Bottle for example).

This caught my attention:

When I was a little boy I loved drawing, so my mum took me to an arts class.

I drew stars as little dots because I knew they are faraway suns. My teacher insisted that they should be drawn with five corners, because "we" see them with five corners.

Frankly, I'd like to beat that "art" teacher. With a nail studed baseball bat.

How much "more" hope? The difference is probably... academic.

Lawyers and Bankers rules the world. Always have, always will be. :(

:D Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaa

*cough*
Fnord

:D Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaa

*cough*
Fnord

Need a cough drop from my lab? :D

I know there are many science supporters on NSG.

However, I have written five reasons why science sucks in this article (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/top-five-reasons-why-science-sucks.html).

I wonder if you agree with my views (especially people who are doing science now, like Bottle for example).

Science doesn't suck. Black Holes... now they suck.... :p

Need a cough drop from my lab? :D

No thanks, but I'll still have to charge you for answering your question. ;)

*Takes money*

No thanks, but I'll still have to charge you for answering your question. ;)

*Takes money*

Doh! :eek:

*considers a career in consulting*

I thought I signed up to join the Federation and tour the galaxy.

Service guarantees Citizenship.

Would you like to know more? :D

Yes please..! :)

You do realise that there are a VERY limited number of decent science-oriented intergalactic vessels that come to this particular planet, right?

Most of the traffic to this end of the galaxy are goofy "Bigeyed-GRAYs" eco-tourist tours, and anti-gravity spirograph-in-the-corn tours.

Good luck catchin' any research ships.

Yes please..! :)

You do realise that there are a VERY limited number of decent science-oriented intergalactic vessels that come to this particular planet, right?

Most of the traffic to this end of the galaxy are goofy "Bigeyed-GRAYs" eco-tourist tours, and anti-gravity spirograph-in-the-corn tours.

Good luck catchin' any research ships.

Sigh the grass is always greener...

Nice. Very nice. 7 posts and the discussion went from bashing science into talking about figurative beastiality. :D

NationStates is awesome.*

*Scientifically proven fact. :p

Frankly, I'd like to beat that "art" teacher. With a nail studed baseball bat.
Reminds me of my 4th grade teacher who told me in nature study class that I'd be going to hell because I believed in evolution and dinosaurs (at the age of 10). Looking back, I think that was the first time I stood up to a creationist. :D

yo-hoo, back from work, resume posting!

#4.Oh well. But so you get to protest and march through the streets brandishing red flags, and that's quite attractive to women! "Ohh, look a the cool intellectual revolutionary, cute!"
And commuting by tramways in Milan is faster than commuting by car. Traffic jams at every hour, you know.

#3.Yea there is a lot of creativity in Physics, expecially when you fit the experimental data in your nice theory via smashing them with a hammer. And Einstein said that special relativity worked because it is sooo mathematically elegant. Posh theory.

#2.Failure is COOL! Makes you look nerdy and grunge, drink a lot of coffee and alcohol and smoke like a steamer, and gives you an excuse to avoid shaving each morning. And, after an year of failures, success tastes a lot better.

#1.Oh my youth as student's gone pretty well. Drank lotta beer and grappa, lots of late-night party-going with fellow students, also Magic(TM), ADnD and any kind of RPG invented by humans, bawdy speech, black humour... hey, maybe that's why I'm still waiting to get my laurea!

Yes please..! :)

You do realise that there are a VERY limited number of decent science-oriented intergalactic vessels that come to this particular planet, right?

Most of the traffic to this end of the galaxy are goofy "Bigeyed-GRAYs" eco-tourist tours, and anti-gravity spirograph-in-the-corn tours.

Good luck catchin' any research ships.

Luckily, they're not Vogons!

DON'T PANIC (in large, friendly letters)

Reminds me of my 4th grade teacher who told me in nature study class that I'd be going to hell because I believed in evolution and dinosaurs (at the age of 10). Looking back, I think that was the first time I stood up to a creationist. :D

And a jolly good work it was, old chap! Lots of thumbs up for you!

Lawyers and Bankers rules the world. Always have, always will be. :(

Just till we shut the power :sniper: off.:D

NERD POWER!

I personally don't care for science. It bores me to tears. However, I do recognize that it is extremely important and vital to our daily lives, so meh. It's a necessary evil, like math.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Yes please..!

You do realise that there are a VERY limited number of decent science-oriented intergalactic vessels that come to this particular planet, right?

Most of the traffic to this end of the galaxy are goofy "Bigeyed-GRAYs" eco-tourist tours, and anti-gravity spirograph-in-the-corn tours.

Good luck catchin' any research ships.


Luckily, they're not Vogons!

DON'T PANIC (in large, friendly letters)


Vogons are FICTITIOUS, silly..!

..and I forgot to mention the "anal probe" tourist traffic, but that was because nobody at the intergalactic tourism board likes to admit that that one exists, and I don't like to piss those people off,.. 'cause they have "pull", don'tcha know.

In regard to your blog post.

There are almost always exceptions. Your statement that there are always exceptions is blatantly false, because you just stated there was an exception to there not being exceptions to always having exceptions.

His statement might be the exception that proves it's own rule.

His statement might be the exception that proves it's own rule.

Actually it's an exception that disproves his own rule. As in saying there's always an exception he's proving that there is not always an exception. The very statement however proves that there is "always" an exception. It disproves itself. Though it's a bit of a logical paradox.

Actually it's an exception that disproves his own rule. As in saying there's always an exception he's proving that there is not always an exception. The very statement however proves that there is "always" an exception. It disproves itself. Though it's a bit of a logical paradox.

All right, all right, I've changed it to "often" exceptions. Is everyone happy now? Can we get some beer now? :cool:

yo-hoo, back from work, resume posting!

#4.Oh well. But so you get to protest and march through the streets brandishing red flags, and that's quite attractive to women! "Ohh, look a the cool intellectual revolutionary, cute!"
And commuting by tramways in Milan is faster than commuting by car. Traffic jams at every hour, you know.

#3.Yea there is a lot of creativity in Physics, expecially when you fit the experimental data in your nice theory via smashing them with a hammer. And Einstein said that special relativity worked because it is sooo mathematically elegant. Posh theory.

#2.Failure is COOL! Makes you look nerdy and grunge, drink a lot of coffee and alcohol and smoke like a steamer, and gives you an excuse to avoid shaving each morning. And, after an year of failures, success tastes a lot better.

#1.Oh my youth as student's gone pretty well. Drank lotta beer and grappa, lots of late-night party-going with fellow students, also Magic(TM), ADnD and any kind of RPG invented by humans, bawdy speech, black humour... hey, maybe that's why I'm still waiting to get my laurea!

Just a few reasons why you should do science in Europe. Incidentally Milan is only the second best city in Europe for scientific research.

The best city for science is Barcelona.

'Nuff said.

I know there are many science supporters on NSG.

However, I have written five reasons why science sucks in this article (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/top-five-reasons-why-science-sucks.html).

I wonder if you agree with my views (especially people who are doing science now, like Bottle for example).

I would like to differ. Screw the Honda, I drive up to my job in a Mercedes.
Genetics counseling and research can pay very well. So can fertility assistance although that tends to vary a bit more.
Also have you seen what Pharmaceutical companies are paying?

Sure you need to be in school a long time but that's because you're learning a lot. I should hope that KNOWLEDGE is the reason you got into science in the first place. Understanding the secrets of the universe and knowing the reason things happen the way they do. Of Course that takes awhile. If you'd rather be out partying that's your decision but few jobs pay for skills learned while drinking beer with friends

As for having to try 100 times to get something right, well the feeling you get when it all comes together and goes perfectly is worth it to me. :D

So when you say science sucks you should add "like a thousand dollar a night hooker with magic fingers and a talented tongue". :D :D :fluffle:

Good Luck and Keep at it! What discipline are you studying anyway?

Common man. You LOVE science! Because it is your friend! :fluffle:

Great post Xisla.. you really hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. (I'm in my last few months of a PhD in Molecular Biology) I think the problems you point out are particularly bad for biologists, as they tend to be dealing with much less predictable material, but easily extended to most people in scientific research fields, especially those still in Academia. I would however say that Medicine does tend to be a bit better funded so it does mean that you may well be getting around in that Honda at some point.. though here in Australia the chances of getting up to the Merc point.. even in Medicine are still pretty remote.

To the guys saying you should have known before you started, I also think its a matter of degrees. Sure people know that having a baby is a painful experience, but I don't think many women (or men for that matter) actually realise just how full on it is until they actually get there. Same with science. Studying science doesn't prepare you in the slightest for the process of actually doing scientific research. When you do experiments in undergrad the fundamentals on which the experiments are based are well known, the methods optimised, and the conclusions already known... in the real world science is a series of soul destroying defeats separated by long periods of utter confusion spotted with the occassional eureka moment.

As for the #5 reasons, I think you missed one out.

#6 the only way up is out: In order to move up the ranks in the science you have to move away from doing science. So you end up with a whole heap of excellent scientists being terrible managers and getting paid much more than they used to when they were doing excellent science. Sure its not a problem exclusive to science, but it does appear to be particularly bad in Academia.

Thats not to say I don't love it. For me the balance of intellectual stimulation and the excitment of knowing you are on the cutting edge is worth the pain... but that doesn't mean you can't have a whinge about the pain all the same :)

Both of my parents have PhDs. My father got his in Mathematics (specifically Set Theory) and my mother got hers in Genetics. Neither of them still works in the sciences.

They both spent 10 years trying to get a tenured position at a University, before my father decided that he was sick of making his family move regularly to another place they would only have to leave (that and one of Bill Frist's hospitals had managed to put us in nasty debt because they held my brother in Neo-natal care for longer than they had to), and so we left Southern Florida and moved to Virginia, where my father took work as a Computer Scientist (Ironically, we moved again a year later when he received an offer from Microsoft*).

Neither my mother, nor my father has held an academic job since. They were both told that there would be a shortage of scientists by the time they had their PhDs. Instead there were 2 PhDs for every job on the market.

Obviously something has to be done. If America truly cares about it's scientists, it will mete out more funding for grants and professorships. The other option is that we stop training so many PhDs and tell the truth to the ones we have left.

* Don't glare at me like that! They kept us fed, clothed, and comfortable when we had been miserable before. Even if they ate small children alive, I couldn't care less.

Science doesn't suck. Black Holes... now they suck.... :p
Black holes don't suck, they gravitationally attract things.


And anyone who says science sucks clearly isn't in physics. Yes, physics >>> all other sciences.

Black holes don't suck, they gravitationally attract things.


And anyone who says science sucks clearly isn't in physics. Yes, physics >>> all other sciences.

Besides which, any physicist knows that nothing sucks. It's all just differential pressure.

Besides which, any physicist knows that nothing sucks. It's all just differential pressure.
That too. :p

Great post Xisla.. you really hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. (I'm in my last few months of a PhD in Molecular Biology) I think the problems you point out are particularly bad for biologists, as they tend to be dealing with much less predictable material, but easily extended to most people in scientific research fields, especially those still in Academia. I would however say that Medicine does tend to be a bit better funded so it does mean that you may well be getting around in that Honda at some point.. though here in Australia the chances of getting up to the Merc point.. even in Medicine are still pretty remote.

You are right about the unpredictability, but I should also emphasize the complexity. I'm sure there are times when you asked yourself - gene A goes up gene B goes down, if gene D inhibits gene B does gene C go up or down?

The logic is often very tangled.

To the guys saying you should have known before you started, I also think its a matter of degrees. Sure people know that having a baby is a painful experience, but I don't think many women (or men for that matter) actually realise just how full on it is until they actually get there. Same with science. Studying science doesn't prepare you in the slightest for the process of actually doing scientific research. When you do experiments in undergrad the fundamentals on which the experiments are based are well known, the methods optimised, and the conclusions already known... in the real world science is a series of soul destroying defeats separated by long periods of utter confusion spotted with the occassional eureka moment.

Yes you are so right :fluffle:

Sure I already knew it would be hard, but did I realize it would be so hard? No. Doing original research is a different kettle of fish from undergrad projects, unless you are on an industrial attachment. I encourage everyone to do an industrial attachment to find out if they like research.

And you are also correct that "eureka moments" are extremely rare. And may be eventually meaningless, if the later experiments don't pan out.

Those of you who believe that failure makes the success sweeter, I ask you, how many times are you willing to face that before you lose your patience?


As for the #5 reasons, I think you missed one out.

#6 the only way up is out: In order to move up the ranks in the science you have to move away from doing science. So you end up with a whole heap of excellent scientists being terrible managers and getting paid much more than they used to when they were doing excellent science. Sure its not a problem exclusive to science, but it does appear to be particularly bad in Academia.

Thats not to say I don't love it. For me the balance of intellectual stimulation and the excitment of knowing you are on the cutting edge is worth the pain... but that doesn't mean you can't have a whinge about the pain all the same :)

Indeed, I left out many other reasons (read the comments to my post for additional points). I know what you mean about being "promoted out" of science, but I can't think of a way out of that. The alternative - having non-science managers to run the show - isn't that terribly attractive either.

I would like to differ. Screw the Honda, I drive up to my job in a Mercedes.
Genetics counseling and research can pay very well. So can fertility assistance although that tends to vary a bit more.
Also have you seen what Pharmaceutical companies are paying?

Sure you need to be in school a long time but that's because you're learning a lot. I should hope that KNOWLEDGE is the reason you got into science in the first place. Understanding the secrets of the universe and knowing the reason things happen the way they do. Of Course that takes awhile. If you'd rather be out partying that's your decision but few jobs pay for skills learned while drinking beer with friends

As for having to try 100 times to get something right, well the feeling you get when it all comes together and goes perfectly is worth it to me. :D

So when you say science sucks you should add "like a thousand dollar a night hooker with magic fingers and a talented tongue". :D :D :fluffle:

Good Luck and Keep at it! What discipline are you studying anyway?

Thanks for your encouragement! I do molecular developmental evolution (the fabled evo-devo). I think I suck at it, but I am the only evo-devo student in Singapore so I am the best by default. :D

Both of my parents have PhDs. My father got his in Mathematics (specifically Set Theory) and my mother got hers in Genetics. Neither of them still works in the sciences.

They both spent 10 years trying to get a tenured position at a University, before my father decided that he was sick of making his family move regularly to another place they would only have to leave (that and one of Bill Frist's hospitals had managed to put us in nasty debt because they held my brother in Neo-natal care for longer than they had to), and so we left Southern Florida and moved to Virginia, where my father took work as a Computer Scientist (Ironically, we moved again a year later when he received an offer from Microsoft*).

Neither my mother, nor my father has held an academic job since. They were both told that there would be a shortage of scientists by the time they had their PhDs. Instead there were 2 PhDs for every job on the market.

Obviously something has to be done. If America truly cares about it's scientists, it will mete out more funding for grants and professorships. The other option is that we stop training so many PhDs and tell the truth to the ones we have left.

* Don't glare at me like that! They kept us fed, clothed, and comfortable when we had been miserable before. Even if they ate small children alive, I couldn't care less.

This is a real concern for me. There seem to be many opportunities for post-docs but much fewer faculty positions. So people are spending more and more time doing one post-doc after another - the competition is going to be bad.

Of course I am keeping my options open. Industry and Education has always been attractive. :)

Thanks for your encouragement! I do molecular developmental evolution (the fabled evo-devo). I think I suck at it, but I am the only evo-devo student in Singapore so I am the best by default. :D

Creepy. The girl on comp in the row in front of me is doing a powerpoint on evo-devo. I just read your post and looked up. :eek:

*theme from twilight zone*

I love the sort of three way war going between the science fields, business fields and arts fields.

The business fields have the resources but no potential or flair
The science fields have potential and flair but no resources
And the arts fields have both, but no-one takes them seriously anyway :D

I think you need to clarify the field of science. Because I know alot of Computer Science majors making a decent living and have been holding onto their jobs for many many years. I myself am an Applied Technology major and have a good job. If you are talking about Biologists, Zoologists, etc. then I would say you were right. The only thing that I can think of career wise for a Biologist is the same career I can see for a Philosophy major. Teaching their major at a university.

I am looking at the site and I can only say one thing...

That is a funny picture of you with the spoon and knife!!:D

That's why Im happy I am majoring in Meteorology, thus I get to meet the hot women that tell the weather :D

Yay for engineering, where I can just fuck it and go into management.

And anyone who says science sucks clearly isn't in physics. Yes, physics >>> all other sciences.
what the deuce? biology is more general than physics, ergo, biology >>>> physics.

I know there are many science supporters on NSG.

However, I have written five reasons why science sucks in this article (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/top-five-reasons-why-science-sucks.html).

I wonder if you agree with my views (especially people who are doing science now, like Bottle for example).

I'm currently working on my first post-doc position in a university genetics department. My colleagues and I normally get 6 month contracts, so job security is pretty much the worst one could have, after at least 10 years of university education.

The pay isn't great either. I get about as much as someone who works in an auto factory, after tax. Because I'm in a higher tax bracket, they take more from me.

So from an economical point of view, anyone looking to do science is simply nuts.

I've been fortunate enough to have good supervisors and bosses for my whole training, or at least to get along with them well enough. But I know others that have not been so fortunate. A feud with your supervisor can really mess up your career, not to mention your life. You really have to be able to bow to someone else's superior ego, at times. Otherwise, you should forget science.

Oh, and then there's the point you made about dealing with disappointment. Of course most experiments end in failure. Even failure to get a negative result. Such is life, we say, and just try to move on. For people who don't deal with disappointment very well, science is not advised. (Sometimes I wonder how well I deal with it too.)

That's mostly the bad side of science nowadays, IMO.

The good part is that you get to manage your own timetable. I often sleep in and work late, just because it's easier than battling with the 7:30am rush hour traffic.

I also don't worry about the paper publishing pressure too much. Because my area of research is not very widely studied, and all the other scientists working in the same area are more likely to be my collaborators, rather than my competitors.

Plus I also get a couple minutes in between experiments where I can have a quick browse on NS, some days at least. That's usually a plus.

But the biggest plus about science is just being able to fulfill my curiousity about the natural world. Biology is a hugely fascinatingly complex world, and while some people get frustrated by the complexity, I find it quite fulfilling--most of the time. Sometimes it can be just down right boring, but that is rare, so long as I have been getting enough sleep.

And when you get those breakthroughs--man--that really can be quite something.

In conclusion, while I realize that science isn't for everyone, I'm quite happy to stick at it for a while longer, at least, drive my old VW, wear my old jeans, and have the time of my life looking at the intensely crazy world of biology. Better that than being a rich and bored accountant.

(And biology has to beat physics hands down any day.)

Great article, but I still <3 science. :P

While you're still in science, for the brief time before you sell out, you are acting compassionately and logically over your base animal insticts of self-preservation that tie into money. Ultimately, like all animals, you will only be truly happy when following your base insticts, but it's nice if for a time you can have the illusion of free will over your nature. Then get a nice high paying job and flashy cars to please your inner monkey. Logic won't make you happy.

Unless you can train yourself to not measure your life's success by job titles and wealth, you'll always have pressure from your insticts to 'better' yourself by finding a way to make more money.

what the deuce? biology is more general than physics, ergo, biology >>>> physics.
Physics is the basis of chemistry, which is the basis of biology which is the basis of psychology. Physics is the most fundamental of all the sciences.

Plus physics is so much more fun than biology. Who wants to memorize stuff when you can be learning about the origins of the universe or measuring its constants?

Pray the Lord
who invented Sciences for the ***.
sciences help you have a small salary and the great satisfaction to be one of the official liars on the planet.
No lies like politicians, just the big stupid lies like: "don't worry we know".

Sciences believe to know everything, to master every aspect of life without any basic knowledge, science would rule the world if politicians were not bigger liars.

Sciences are of good use for the physician who cannot tell you your illness and can't help you with pain.
Sciences are a good help to understand the sacred texts to say if our lord is an asshole or does not exist.

Sciences are the progress and the future for some poor country where new drugs made of cocaine have to be re-invented every year.

Jesuites are scientists for the sake of your soul, they speak with the authority of the great scientist, you're a bunch of amateurs, only the great Doctor knows. Jesuites know what's good for you, our sciences, not that crazy usian science made with fake dollars and bad softwares from Microhard. The self inifugated science of Jesuites.

science gets you a better job, but first it crushes your spirit.:(

Physics is the basis of chemistry, which is the basis of biology which is the basis of psychology. Physics is the most fundamental of all the sciences.

Plus physics is so much more fun than biology. Who wants to memorize stuff when you can be learning about the origins of the universe or measuring its constants?

here here.

sciences help you have a small salary and the great satisfaction to be one of the official liars on the planet.
Actually, the process of peer-review forces honesty in the sciences. If someone was lying about a discovery or their results then it would quickly be examined and discovered to be false by others, who would discredit the work of that particular scientist.

Sciences believe to know everything, to master every aspect of life without any basic knowledge, science would rule the world if politicians were not bigger liars.
1. Scientists do not believe they know everything. There are theories that seem to be an accurate description of the world and are repeatedly and carefully tested to see if the theories match up to real world results.
2. There is a lot more than basic knowledge that goes into being a scientist. It requires years and years of study.

Sciences are of good use for the physician who cannot tell you your illness and can't help you with pain.
I wouldn't call physicians scientists...

Sciences are a good help to understand the sacred texts to say if our lord is an asshole or does not exist.
Science doesn't touch on religion.

Sciences are the progress and the future for some poor country where new drugs made of cocaine have to be re-invented every year.
Most science is not the phramaceutical variety.

Jesuites are scientists for the sake of your soul, they speak with the authority of the great scientist, you're a bunch of amateurs, only the great Doctor knows. Jesuites know what's good for you, our sciences, not that crazy usian science made with fake dollars and bad softwares from Microhard. The self inifugated science of Jesuites.
What "great scientist" gives this authority? Come on, let him submit a paper for peer review.

Physics is the basis of chemistry, which is the basis of biology which is the basis of psychology. Physics is the most fundamental of all the sciences.

Plus physics is so much more fun than biology. Who wants to memorize stuff when you can be learning about the origins of the universe or measuring its constants?

And I always though physics was about memorizing stuff, like constants, while biology was more like looking at looking at a fascinating world through a microcope. They say that most of our microbes are yet to be identified. Many are yet to be discovered.

And I always though physics was about memorizing stuff, like constants, while biology was more like looking at looking at a fascinating world through a microcope. They say that most of our microbes are yet to be identified. Many are yet to be discovered.
Psh, who needs to memorize constants? They're programmed into most calculators and the makers of the calculators provide this nice little table showing you where each constant is.
I don't even memorize formulas, although they do become second nature after so many problems sometimes. Usually formula sheets are given out or crib sheets are allowed.

At any rate, there is absolutely no memorization in physics. There are things you have to remember, but it's not memorization. And really, microbes are boring, staring out into space at the very earliest galaxies or smashing atoms in a supercollider... now that's fun.

Great article, but I still <3 science. :P

While you're still in science, for the brief time before you sell out, you are acting compassionately and logically over your base animal insticts of self-preservation that tie into money. Ultimately, like all animals, you will only be truly happy when following your base insticts, but it's nice if for a time you can have the illusion of free will over your nature. Then get a nice high paying job and flashy cars to please your inner monkey. Logic won't make you happy.

Unless you can train yourself to not measure your life's success by job titles and wealth, you'll always have pressure from your insticts to 'better' yourself by finding a way to make more money.

I don't follow that logic. I don't believe people are truly happy by following your base instincts. Sooner or later, even they get tiresome, although they might be pleasant at first. Thus, even people with lots of money and flash cars have bad hair days and crappy moments. Unlike animals, I believe that humans have the choice to deny their 'inner monkey' and live for something greater than themselves. Call me an idealist, but living for a cause greater than your 'inner monkey' is everytime more fulfilling. For one thing, your 'inner monkey' will never say 'enough', until the day that it tries to convince you that you are the best. And when you buy that, you wake up being the worst arrogant prick you have ever met.

Live for a cause that is greater than your monkey, and you will have a better life than a monkey. Alternatively, live for your monkey, and have a life that even a monkey wouldn't want.

Psh, who needs to memorize constants? They're programmed into most calculators and the makers of the calculators provide this nice little table showing you where each constant is.
I don't even memorize formulas, although they do become second nature after so many problems sometimes. Usually formula sheets are given out or crib sheets are allowed.

At any rate, there is absolutely no memorization in physics. There are things you have to remember, but it's not memorization. And really, microbes are boring, staring out into space at the very earliest galaxies or smashing atoms in a supercollider... now that's fun.

Perhaps it's just my impressions of physics in school and undergrad--all that memorizing formula's and constants. Biology, on the other hand, doesn't rely on memorization, so much as understanding complexity. Understanding can be hard, sure, but your brain is like a muscle. The more you use it, the better it gets. Thus figuring out the control and regulating network in the genes of microbes is fascinating. It's the secrets of life itself. Plus you get to work your brain into something less fuzzy.

or smashing atoms in a supercollider... now that's fun.

I get the impression that you liked to smash your toys when you were little.

And I always though physics was about memorizing stuff, like constants, while biology was more like looking at looking at a fascinating world through a microcope. They say that most of our microbes are yet to be identified. Many are yet to be discovered.

Biology is shagging and getting wasted. Physics is blowing shit up.

Science is a mood-enhancing drug.

Biology is shagging and getting wasted. Physics is blowing shit up.

Science is a mood-enhancing drug.

You're a shocker, Grave!

If my wife thought that about biology, I would be in serious trouble.

And, seriously, the part about physics blowing things up would explain why the physics department in my university has a huge majority of boys--I mean, men.

On the other hand, biology is really full of women here........not sure if your theory takes that into account.

You're a shocker, Grave!

If my wife thought that about biology, I would be in serious trouble.

And, seriously, the part about physics blowing things up would explain why the physics department in my university has a huge majority of boys--I mean, men.

On the other hand, biology is really full of women here........not sure if your theory takes that into account.

Because women don't shag?

Because women don't shag?

They just lie back and think of England, don't they?

Because women don't shag?

Did I say that???? Did I even imply that??

I was merely curious as to how that fitted into your theory......

So let me put this another way:

If biology is a shag joint, why are there more women than men in there? Would you say that women are more likely to have casual sex than men?

I don't follow that logic. I don't believe people are truly happy by following your base instincts. Sooner or later, even they get tiresome, although they might be pleasant at first. Thus, even people with lots of money and flash cars have bad hair days and crappy moments. Unlike animals, I believe that humans have the choice to deny their 'inner monkey' and live for something greater than themselves. Call me an idealist, but living for a cause greater than your 'inner monkey' is everytime more fulfilling. For one thing, your 'inner monkey' will never say 'enough', until the day that it tries to convince you that you are the best. And when you buy that, you wake up being the worst arrogant prick you have ever met.

Live for a cause that is greater than your monkey, and you will have a better life than a monkey. Alternatively, live for your monkey, and have a life that even a monkey wouldn't want.
We are still monkeys. If you don't do what's programmed to please your reward centres then you won't be happy. You can train yourself to want more complex rewards and it can all be very subtle, but ultimately you only have limited control over what makes you happy and what doesn't. If you go against your base nature entirely, it will leave you feeling unfulfilled.

Did I say that???? Did I even imply that??

I was merely curious as to how that fitted into your theory......

So let me put this another way:

If biology is a shag joint, why are there more women than men in there? Would you say that women are more likely to have casual sex than men?

Because women prefer shagging to blowing shit up.

They are the more sensitive gender, you know.

Plus, everyone knows science labs are a hotbed of red hot lesbian action. It's the open-fronted lab coats and latex gloves. No one can resist their allure.

We are still monkeys. If you don't do what's programmed to please your reward centres then you won't be happy. You can train yourself to want more complex rewards and it can all be very subtle, but ultimately you only have limited control over what makes you happy and what doesn't. If you go against your base nature entirely, it will leave you feeling unfulfilled.

Ahh, I see, that's a clever way of putting it. Well, I suppose I see a difference between rewards and rewards. I suppose what I was saying is that part of being human is getting to choose which rewards to seek.

Real intelligence is choosing a good reward over a shallow one. And just having the 'look', i.e., flash cars and a fat wallet, doesn't add up to a good reward, IMO. Rather, having a fulfilling career in science might--depending on what that means, of course, because people think that a career in science is only rewarding if it ends in lots of money and a big reputation.

I've seen enough people in science getting around with flashy cars, big reputations, and inflated egos to know that I certainly hope that isn't for me. I won't say no to a flashy car, but that is a poor motivation for working extra late in the lab for 20 years. And it certainly can't sustain happiness or satisfaction, IMO. The people I admire the most are ones that are able to achieve something significant while remaining humble about it, even better if they can live simply despite having a healthy bank balance.

A far better reward would be to use science to help people, to look forward to seeing your work make a difference for the most unfortunate people in this world. Like working with HIV for the people of Africa--finding a cheaper was to cure or control the disease. Now that would be something.

Because women prefer shagging to blowing shit up.

They are the more sensitive gender, you know.

Plus, everyone knows science labs are a hotbed of red hot lesbian action. It's the open-fronted lab coats and latex gloves. No one can resist their allure.


Only in a very randy and rich imagination, Grave.

Only in a very randy and rich imagination, Grave.

Wow... you must work in a really boring lab....

Come on, admit it... it was the latex that got you into science in the first place, right?

Physics is the basis of chemistry, which is the basis of biology which is the basis of psychology. Physics is the most fundamental of all the sciences.

Plus physics is so much more fun than biology. Who wants to memorize stuff when you can be learning about the origins of the universe or measuring its constants?
time-independence does not exist in biology. independent constants do not exist in biology. therefore, biology is more general.

canonical physics can only deal with relatively simple systems, and cannot explain systems that do not have an immediate mechanistic basis, such as behaviour. therefore, physics is not an underlying basis of most of biology, and certainly not of psychology.

Science doesn't suck. Black holes don't suck. Black holes attract matter via gravitation.

On that note, I would like to point out something:

1. In generally, men have more mass than women.

2. gravitational attraction is based largely upon mass.

Therefore it can be concluded that everyone is more attracted to men (the bigger the more-so) than to women.... especially thin ones.

Fat men are the most attractive and thin women are the least.

And you wonder why everyone is so screwed up on physical attraction when the media only shows us thin women!

Perhaps it's just my impressions of physics in school and undergrad--all that memorizing formula's and constants.
I've never ever had to memorize a formula for physics. In highschool we were given the equations on tests and by first year university, we were taught how to derive them.

Biology, on the other hand, doesn't rely on memorization, so much as understanding complexity. Understanding can be hard, sure, but your brain is like a muscle. The more you use it, the better it gets. Thus figuring out the control and regulating network in the genes of microbes is fascinating. It's the secrets of life itself. Plus you get to work your brain into something less fuzzy.
Biology does so rely on memorization, you have to memorize what parts of the cell does what, how the processes that cells preform work et c. Understanding biology was never something I had an issue with.

I get the impression that you liked to smash your toys when you were little.
No, my toys are in pretty good condition.

Of course, if I had thrown two toys together at near light speeds, nothing particularly interesting would have happened to either of them apart from being smashed into pieces. Gold nuclei on the other hand...

And, seriously, the part about physics blowing things up would explain why the physics department in my university has a huge majority of boys--I mean, men.
Well, no it's probably more likely because a lot of women tend to be encouraged towards the life sciences and away from the physical sciences. There's a bit of a stereotype that women can't do math and thus can't do physics as well. Plus physics is generally perceived as being harder than the other sciences so if you're going to go into it you're probably going to perceive yourself as smarter than most people, and while men and women on average have the same levels of intelligence, men have more geniuses.

Oh, and also physics isn't just about blowing things apart, it's about bringing things together... think of accretion..

time-independence does not exist in biology. independent constants do not exist in biology. therefore, biology is more general.

canonical physics can only deal with relatively simple systems, and cannot explain systems that do not have an immediate mechanistic basis, such as behaviour. therefore, physics is not an underlying basis of most of biology, and certainly not of psychology.
I said that chemistry was the underlying basis of biology and that physics was the underlying basis of chemistry. To say that biology is based on chemistry is not at all unreasonable. And to say that chemistry is based on physics is also not unreasonable.

Furthermore, physics is much more general than biology, biology concerns only the study of organisms, while physics concerns the study of the whole fucking universe. Seriously, every-fucking-thing. Biology only studies a small portion of the universe, i.e. the biological entities that inhabit it, which are affected by physics at every level. I'm not saying you can predict the behaviour of an animal based on physics or anything like that... but there is a reason that people who want to major in biology have to take physics while people who major in physics don't have to take biology.

but there is a reason that people who want to major in biology have to take physics while people who major in physics don't have to take biology.
biologists only take physics to learn analytic logical skills, not because 1st year mechanics teaches you anything useful. and anyways, a lot of biologists wish that physicists would take biology so they wouldn't make dumb comments like this about biology.

general does not mean the number of applications. general refers to the approach required to solve the problem. for instance, i was totally stunned to find out i needed a calculator in my quantum exam yesterday; it never occurred to me that one would take a calculator into a physics exam. that is because numbers are (almost) never used, we study the general case. nonetheless, physics is less general, because the rules are better defined, and entire classes of interactions can be defined. in biology, defined rules are exceedingly rare, and so a 'class' of interactions only applies to the subset one is examining. therefore, biology has a level of generality far above that of physics.

and also, Erwin Schrodinger "What is life?" was the first person to suggest that biology is more general than physics, and pissed off a lot of physicists in the process.

Plus physics is so much more fun than biology. Who wants to memorize stuff when you can be learning about the origins of the universe or measuring its constants?

Who wants to measure the speed of light in a vacuum when you can see what happens when you give goldfish beer?

I am looking at the site and I can only say one thing...

That is a funny picture of you with the spoon and knife!!:D

That's why Im happy I am majoring in Meteorology, thus I get to meet the hot women that tell the weather :D

Thankz! :fluffle:

Because women prefer shagging to blowing shit up.

They are the more sensitive gender, you know.

Plus, everyone knows science labs are a hotbed of red hot lesbian action. It's the open-fronted lab coats and latex gloves. No one can resist their allure.

Hmm latex gloves...

*SNAP!*

Red hot lesbian action? You know that gives me an idea... ;)

Hmm latex gloves...

*SNAP!*

Red hot lesbian action? You know that gives me an idea... ;)

Don't you'll just end up downloading spyware.

Don't you'll just end up downloading spyware.

I was thinking of something... else.

*70's music plays in the background* :cool:

One positive aspect of the sciences is the ability (duty?) to use jargon and worse to baffle all who might want to know what in the heck you've been doing with all the grants and other funding youve received. High comedy is there not just in your published papers but also in abstracts of them. Abstracts can really live up to their names with a little effort.

Here's an example.

Emergence Inversion: the Genesis of Life



Abstract

It is reasonable to suppose that life comes into being through evolutionary emergence from inanimate nature [1], but it is less than obvious what the distinction between these two facets of our environment constitutes. We are aware of an apparently abrupt step between the complexities associated with machine-like systems and those of biological organisms, but the categorical distinction we habitually make between the living and the inert is of its very nature self-referential: living organisms are those which are alive!

We present a hierarchical bilaterally complementary scheme of rationality [2], which describes entity-ecosystemic coupling in a unified manner throughout the different perceptional scales [1] of nature. Multiple rationally approximate self-stabilized Newtonian potential wells [3] alternate with chaotically complex layers between the global and the local, in a manner which maintains overall hierarchical coherence and stability. Directionally-dependent transit between adjacent wells is through two sequentially appearing styles of complexity, which are related to the Gödel incompletenesses and Turing halting problems described by Haughs and Lange [4] in their studies of ecosystemic evolution. Analog complexity is associated with diffuseness of determinism [3], and digital complexity with rationally incomplete partiality [5, 6]. The multiple-level hierarchies of locally constrained systems give way globally to the relatively simple universal complementarity of Newtonian and Quantum-mechanical inter-dependence [7]. Coherent simultaneity of global and local causalities [8] operates in a manner equivalent to that of the cross-scalarity of animate comprehension [9] in promoting the fusion of adjacent local hierarchical levels into this global simplification.

Emergence is always from the complex to the simple, and not vice versa, as the complementary concepts of complex and simple exchange their characters when they are viewed from opposite extremes of their complementarity. In a bilateral entity-ecosystemic rationality, emergence can effectively proceed not only from the analogically complex to the digitally complex, but also from the digitally complex to the analogically complex, where the processes correspond in both cases to simplification, albeit along different lines. We consider the perceptionally-scalar relevance of emergence [1], both from and towards analog complexity, and conclude that a complication-consequent evolutionary inversion in the sense of emergence [2] corresponded to the genesis of life, and has led to the traditionally categorical inanimate-animate distinction.

http://evol.etro.vub.ac.be/level_2/conferences/isss-00/life_abstract.html


That's funny and I dont care who you are!

One positive aspect of the sciences is the ability (duty?) to use jargon and worse to baffle all who might want to know what in the heck you've been doing with all the grants and other funding youve received. High comedy is there not just in your published papers but also in abstracts of them. Abstracts can really live up to their names with a little effort.

Here's an example.



http://evol.etro.vub.ac.be/level_2/conferences/isss-00/life_abstract.html


That's funny and I dont care who you are!

"Abstract" :D

Have you categorically demonstrated that it is concomitant with empirical support? :confused: