Page 1 of 1

Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:43 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Science, it works bitches.

Alright dudes/dudettes here's the shake down.

The following rules are in addition to standard fora etiquette.

Rule the first:
If it's doesn't have anything to do with Science, and especially if it doesn't have anything to do with the original idea behind the thread (if it goes off-topic but is still about science we can split it so that's not a huge deal, but you should be starting new threads on your own initiative) it will most likely be <strongbad>DELETED</strongbad>

Rule the second:
Only a small amount of pseudo-science is permitted, mostly to debunk it, and if we feel everything has been said we'll probably lock it (if you're still convinced after 3 pages that 0.999... is not equal to 1 it gets boring)

Rule the third:
Keep things civil. Sticks on the ice boys and girls. If you don't agree with someone on a particular theory/question do not attack them. Attack their math all you like, but for the most part we want to see people working together to help reach a common goal. Things like, what happens at the singularity of a black hole are not things anyone is close to determining for sure so we're going to have differing opinions, but that's no reason to get nasty. Flames will definitely be deleted, as it's easier to delete a post than edit out the flameness you run the risk of a perfectly good argument being deleted because you wanted to make someone feel like an idiot.

If you have the words "idiot" or "arrogant" in your post, reconsider it.

Rule the fourth:
While these are the forums for a humour comic, don't get carried away with silliness. The mudkip thing was kinda funny, but as you can see it only encourages offtopic discussion which is a bit annoying. There's always General for that sorta thing. We herd they leik mudkips.

Rule the fifth - Homework and things that look like homework:
If the question you're asking is homework, say so, and let us know what work you've already done on the problem. If it's the sort of question that looks like homework but isn't, tell us that as well. If you don't, you may not find our answers particularly helpful. In fact, we may very well purposely write overly complicated and/or impractical solutions. (See this thread for an example.)
Seriously, we don't mind offering homework help to people who are honest in requesting it, and who have clearly done some work on their own before getting stuck. But we are not here to do your homework for you, so please don't just copy math or science questions directly from your problem set and expect us to kindly do all your work for you. Also, any person who abuses this and posts little other than homework questions will start to wear on our patience.
2008-12-22 Update: If you've figured out a homework problem, let us know. It means people no longer need to continue giving hints. (And if it's not a problem I expect to involve much discussion, it means I can go ahead and lock the thread.)

2009/10/21 Update: Rule/suggestion the sixth - Please make thread titles somewhat indicative of the content therein
I don't expect the title to give all the details of the content of the thread; that's what the OP is for. But I would like to be able to skim through the forum and know whether I've looked at or posted in a thread simply by reading the title. So things like "Interesting question" or "What if..." are not helpful. I've been editing these threads to change the subject line, but it would be helpful if you did the same. "Interesting question about a mirrored sphere" or "What if pi were 4?" would be much, much more useful to everyone.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 7:00 am UTC
by LE4dGOLEM
Rule suggestion: If possible (ie not a crossover) all threads should begin with a declaration of the particular field at the start of the title, for example

[PHYSICS] Particle Acceleration
[CHEMISTRY] Interesting Carbon Structures!
[BIOLOGY] The Human Eye vs the Octopus Eye

Just to help people get to only the threads they want, without making the frontpage of the fora over nine thousand feet long.

EDIT:

Or even shortening to P, C and B for crossovers, for example (maybe)

[P&C] Bucky Ball collisions at .5c!

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:06 pm UTC
by Belial
Aren't all chemistry topics technically chemistry and physics? And all biology topics technically biology, chemistry, and physics?

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 4:21 pm UTC
by LE4dGOLEM
But it would help declare the intent of the discussion - If people want to talk about how the human eye has developed upside down (or backwards, or soemthing) versus the octopus eye, they want to talk about that, not have a large discussion about how much carbon is in an eye versus a different piece of flesh.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:23 pm UTC
by cmacis
Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:45 pm UTC
by Belial
But it would help declare the intent of the discussion - If people want to talk about how the human eye has developed upside down (or backwards, or soemthing) versus the octopus eye, they want to talk about that, not have a large discussion about how much carbon is in an eye versus a different piece of flesh.


I know, LE4d. I'm just being a dick. It happens.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:46 pm UTC
by LE4dGOLEM
Or at least stop people putting things in science that doesn't belong in science.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 7:23 pm UTC
by You, sir, name?
cmacis wrote:Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.


What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:09 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
You, sir, name? wrote:
cmacis wrote:Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.


What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?


No, that would be silly and circular.

Mathematicians just know they are mathematicians, and that they therefore have no need to delude themselves into thinking they're something "better". (As if such a concept isn't self-contradictory on its face.)

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:09 pm UTC
by bbctol
You, sir, name? wrote:
cmacis wrote:Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.


What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?


Mathemiticians think they are D&Ders.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:14 pm UTC
by The LuigiManiac
bbctol wrote:
You, sir, name? wrote:
cmacis wrote:Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.


What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?


Mathemiticians think they are D&Ders.


So then, do D&Ders think they are biologists?

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:16 pm UTC
by cmacis
If I understand D&D properly, they think they are wizards.

Why would there need to be anything above maths? Even God wants to be a mathematician.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:54 pm UTC
by skeptical scientist
bbctol wrote:
You, sir, name? wrote:What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?


Mathemiticians think they are D&Ders.

Guilty as charged.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 12:16 am UTC
by Belial
If I understand D&D properly, they think they are wizards.


Or barbarians!

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:17 am UTC
by LE4dGOLEM
Belial wrote:
If I understand D&D properly, they think they are wizards.


Or barbarians!


Pfft. Everyone knows Sorcerors is where it's at.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:46 pm UTC
by Belial
Actually, judging by my play history, it's all about jungle druids with Raptor companions and all of the mounted combat feats.

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:07 pm UTC
by German Sausage
*Surrenders like a Frenchman*

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:27 pm UTC
by Woxor
gmalivuk wrote:Mathematicians just know they are mathematicians, and that they therefore have no need to delude themselves into thinking they're something "better". (As if such a concept isn't self-contradictory on its face.)

Mathematicians find the axioms "I am a mathematician" and "I am not a mathematician" to be interesting in their own rights, with one being consistent if and only if the other is consistent, but of course most of them assume the former for most of their work.

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:32 pm UTC
by miles01110
bbctol wrote:Mathemiticians think they are D&Ders.


Nah, mathematicians think they are "cool." Oops, let one slip...

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:46 pm UTC
by Vaniver
I would like to point out that it was in fact SpitValve who derailed my scientifically accurate and relevant mudkip on a scale on a spring.

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:02 pm UTC
by Hawknc
He herd u liek mudkips, and, well...what else is a man to do?

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:13 pm UTC
by Gordon
We've been trying to ween SV off the 'kip (as it's called on the streets) for some time, we're just looking to you all for support.

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:37 am UTC
by gmalivuk
Added a request to let us know if you've solved HW problems.

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:21 am UTC
by PhatPhungus
Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:29 pm UTC
by sje46
PhatPhungus wrote:Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Go to totse.

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:08 pm UTC
by PhatPhungus
sje46 wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Go to totse.


It's been down for over a month. Way to be insensitive.

Edit: Down as in gone forever.

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:59 am UTC
by sje46
PhatPhungus wrote:
sje46 wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Go to totse.


It's been down for over a month. Way to be insensitive.

Edit: Down as in gone forever.

I knew this actually, ha.

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:01 am UTC
by PhatPhungus
sje46 wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:
sje46 wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Go to totse.


It's been down for over a month. Way to be insensitive.

Edit: Down as in gone forever.

I knew this actually, ha.


So now you're intentionally insensitive?

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:04 am UTC
by Mynd Ara
are social sciences not included?

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:09 am UTC
by gmalivuk
Pretty sure there's already a thread on the social sciences. So yes, they're included.

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:22 pm UTC
by xkcddckx
is it just me, or does this thread topic remind anyone else of Bill Nye the Science Guy?

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:47 am UTC
by induswebi
I'm surprised there's not a (easily searchable) thread on this, since awesome teacher quotes seem to pop up a lot here. Anyhow, I think it's pretty clear what this is about, so I shall lead off with a funny story that happened today.

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 1:49 pm UTC
by crates
I think there's a danger in thinking that science is actually more intelligent than it actually is. Remember that for 2000 years even every major scientific idea we've had turns out later to be inaccurate. Yes religion is stupid but a little humility goes a long, long way.

...and I quote.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid."

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:17 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
For 1500 of those 2000 years, no one was really doing science. And for the past 500, it's not so much that ideas have been proved wrong as they've been refined and improved upon.

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:57 pm UTC
by Cheezwhiz Jenkins
gmalivuk wrote:For 1500 of those 2000 years, no one was really doing science. And for the past 500, it's not so much that ideas have been proved wrong as they've been refined and improved upon.


*cough* luminiferous aether *cough*

Methinks the point is valid - the *successful* ideas have been refined and improved upon, but even the greatest scientific minds (or essentially the whole scientific community, in this example) have had some flat-out dead wrong ideas.