How scientifically plausible is this, /sci/?
Threads by latest replies - Page 811
(45 replies)
(6 replies)
Is age a social construct?
(5 replies)
>mechanical engineer
>civil engineer
> founding contributor to the science of thermodynamics
> botany, music theory and number theory
> was an enthusiastic amateur singer, pianist and cellist who composed his own humorous songs
Hos did he do it?
>civil engineer
> founding contributor to the science of thermodynamics
> botany, music theory and number theory
> was an enthusiastic amateur singer, pianist and cellist who composed his own humorous songs
Hos did he do it?
(5 replies)
Is it true that alcohol decreases the amount of testosterone your body produces? It would make sense since other unhealthy habits can do that too (being fat, not sleeping, lack of physical activity etc.).
(31 replies)
We all know that there are three types of /sci/entists:
>The Pure Scientist
Pure scientists dedicate their entire lives to the pursuit of science. They go on to earn doctorate degrees and become university professors and researchers. They never leave academia.
Pros:
-Will actually spend most of their time doing research and building up other researchers.
-Their name will be publicly displayed in all papers.
Cons:
-Most research will never find widespread use.
-Will generally be poorer than his peers who did not go the academic route.
Examples: Researchers like Terence Tao.
>The Applied Scientist
They were pretty dedicated to mastering their field during undergrad but then left academia for a career in industry. They still apply their knowledge but their research is guided by corporate needs.
Pros:
-In the right job they could do as much research as a pure scientist.
-Middle-class lifestyle guaranteed from the moment he finishes undergrad.
Cons:
-Will never work on anything particularly outstanding. Just improving some already existing product.
-All breakthroughs are property of the company and he likely worked alongside dozens of other researchers making his contributions minor at best.
Examples: Any researcher in any company ever. As a notable example there is David Silver (lead researcher in stuff like alphago).
>The Business Scientist
They were also very dedicated to mastering their field but eventually moved to start their science/technology-based businesses and from that point forward have to focus on business strategy and finance rather than research.
Pros:
-Your name will be front and center on any breakthrough.
-You will be filthy rich.
Cons:
-After a certain point you won't be directly touching any research. You'll just hire people who will actually research for you.
Examples: Elon Musk, Jim Simons.
Which archetype best fits you and are you happy with that? What are your thoughts about the different paths you can take when it comes to research.
>The Pure Scientist
Pure scientists dedicate their entire lives to the pursuit of science. They go on to earn doctorate degrees and become university professors and researchers. They never leave academia.
Pros:
-Will actually spend most of their time doing research and building up other researchers.
-Their name will be publicly displayed in all papers.
Cons:
-Most research will never find widespread use.
-Will generally be poorer than his peers who did not go the academic route.
Examples: Researchers like Terence Tao.
>The Applied Scientist
They were pretty dedicated to mastering their field during undergrad but then left academia for a career in industry. They still apply their knowledge but their research is guided by corporate needs.
Pros:
-In the right job they could do as much research as a pure scientist.
-Middle-class lifestyle guaranteed from the moment he finishes undergrad.
Cons:
-Will never work on anything particularly outstanding. Just improving some already existing product.
-All breakthroughs are property of the company and he likely worked alongside dozens of other researchers making his contributions minor at best.
Examples: Any researcher in any company ever. As a notable example there is David Silver (lead researcher in stuff like alphago).
>The Business Scientist
They were also very dedicated to mastering their field but eventually moved to start their science/technology-based businesses and from that point forward have to focus on business strategy and finance rather than research.
Pros:
-Your name will be front and center on any breakthrough.
-You will be filthy rich.
Cons:
-After a certain point you won't be directly touching any research. You'll just hire people who will actually research for you.
Examples: Elon Musk, Jim Simons.
Which archetype best fits you and are you happy with that? What are your thoughts about the different paths you can take when it comes to research.
(8 replies)
Scientifically Speaking Is It Actually True Women Think Most Males Are Unattractive?
No.14203071 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Quoted By: >>14203153 >>14203169 >>14203175
I really want to know the truth behind this talking point used by some guys. I can see why it could be true, but I'm not sure. I hope there have been other scientific papers on this.
(53 replies)
if congress were to declare 4chan illegal, would that be a good or a bad thing for the sciences?
(6 replies)
(16 replies)
>plastics turn male brains into female brains
>female brains can't do science
>greatest scientific discoveries of the plastics era years: dark matter, smartphones, global warming, covid-19
>female brains can't do science
>greatest scientific discoveries of the plastics era years: dark matter, smartphones, global warming, covid-19
(18 replies)
AI/MLfags
Will the bot's bias problem be addressed?
Will the bot's bias problem be addressed?
