All of human knowledge and experience is predicated on the reality that our bodies are cognitively and/or physically limited to interpret up to 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension*. You probably fall into a few camps:

>"That's because there are only 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension"
I have yet to come across a rigorous argument for this claim, and suspect I cannot be provided with one. You must examine the axioms of these arguments and determine if their system is predicated on their perceivable quantity of dimensions being equal to the actual number of existing dimensions.

>Additional dimensions are irrelevant if we cannot perceive them or are unaffected by their theoretical presence
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't drive down the interstate at 85mph with my eyes closed on the basis that what I cannot perceive cannot affect me. I do it because I've seen enough and am ready to exit, but I digress.

>We would have evolved to perceive other dimensions if they existed
You do not know how evolution works, go back to the books and find you a tutor who knows how to summarize it into 2-4 words, the maximum required to explain exactly what it is and is not.

>/x/, schizo, meds
Cope, seethe, dilate
The hilarious part about watching flat earth debates is that the people who have them, or dismiss them, are actually incapable of convincingly proving or disproving them in person. It is always delegated to authority. That makes the participants of either side equally compromised in terms of cognition. You can argue that one side is "right" even if they don't know if or can't prove it, which is of course what science is all about in the end, right?

You can say literally anything on this board and get called a midwit.
Demonstrate that many elements of early calculus were first asserted by what would today be called cultists studying stars? Midwit
Assert that MENSA is an organization for narcissists to organize bootycalls through? Midwit
Point out that someone is willfully misinterpreting data for a political argument? Midwit
I've come to think midwit is, ironically, a midwit insult.

OR DJ-edition
old thread >>13398757
We discuss research, DO NOT offer advice (just fucking go see your doctor) make fun of gunner premeds and shitpost. Please keep vaccination/clamping/vitamin K etc. out of this thread and start your own because it takes a lot of space.
>inb4 not science
>inb4 poor amerimutts wanting medical advice

So /pol/ has a theory that the genetic material of previous sexual partners is stored withing a womens body for life as well as the genetic material of previous sexual partners can have an influence on the genetics of a child of a different man. They have some studies for this. What do you think? Do you believe in this? If not why?

here is the links from the pic and one extra
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16084184/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141001090238.htm

What are these things that people see while tripping on DMT?

so this is just pascal's wager at this point

because their pelvis is too small for the baby's head.
Is that true? I figured you boffins would likely know the answer.

Is plastic recycling a meme? Can it ever be done?

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/environment-plastic-oil-recycling/

Explain to me how someone who is unvaccinated could mutate the virus in such a way that makes the virus bypass the vaccine. That makes no sense to me. It seems to me that taking the shitty vaccine is more likely to mutate the virus.

why are soience sois like this?