• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

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

            • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              1 being prime breaks a lot of the useful properties of primes, such as the uniqueness of prime factorization.

                • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Oh, no that’s just the primes. I was responding to a person joking about how we don’t even know all the primes, so I used a technical yet unhelpful definition of “the set of all primes” to be technically correct,xas is the mathematics way. :)

                • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I don’t know if prime factorization is the correct English word for it but the operation I am referring to takes a (non zero) natural number and returns a multiset of primes that give you the original number when multiplied together. Example: pf(12)={2,2,3} if we allowed 1 to be a prime then prime factorization cease to be a function as pf(12)={1,2,2,3} and pf(12)={1,1,1,1,2,2,3} become valid solutions.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

      • Vilian@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

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

        show me Pi then

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

  • RenegadeTwister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    Physics majors have every right to dunk on polisci. Too many majors throw around the word “science” to try to give their made-up voodoo legitimacy.

    • stufkes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        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?

        • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            The issue with considering these to be anything like the ‘hard sciences’ is that it is impossible to even try to control for all variables. Plus, whenever sociologists, for example, make a bad prediction, they just write it off as differences in personality or some other similar thing.

            God forbid they actually just falsified their hypothesis. It’s important that people understand how to think about the social sciences, don’t get me wrong, but they’re pretty overwhelmingly ineffective for creating a proper framework for understanding the world around you.

            Theories in social science and theories in hard science are totally different.

            Theories in science have a shit ton of evidence behind them and haven’t been falsified.

            Theories in social science, on the other hand, are all in competition with each other because they all have their positive and negative aspects that make them better for application in some situations than others.

            And yes I know that we still use a newtonian idea of gravity in many cases, but that’s completely different as it just tends to make the math easier in practice. It’s not that we actually still believe in newtonian ideas.

        • exocrinous@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

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

          • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            Isn’t one of the point of all those telescopes we built in space and on earth to prove or disprove our hypothesis regarding astronomy? Is that not experimentation?

            • exocrinous@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              No, it’s observation. An experiment involves manipulating an independent variable while controlling other variables. There’s none of that in space, not counting the ISS and Apollo. That said, you can still test hypotheses using observation. And that’s equally true in both astronomy and in social sciences.

        • JayObey711@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

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

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

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

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

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

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

          • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The issue with considering these to be anything like the ‘hard sciences’ is that it is impossible to even try to control for all variables. Plus, whenever sociologists, for example, make a bad prediction, they just write it off as differences in personality or some other similar thing.

            God forbid they actually just falsified their hypothesis. It’s important that people understand how to think about the social sciences, don’t get me wrong, but they’re pretty overwhelmingly ineffective for creating a proper framework for understanding the world around you.

            Theories in social science and theories in hard science are totally different.

            Theories in science have a shit ton of evidence behind them and haven’t been falsified.

            Theories in social science, on the other hand, are all in competition with each other because they all have their positive and negative aspects that make them better for application in some situations than others.

            And yes I know that we still use a newtonian idea of gravity in many cases, but that’s completely different as it just tends to make the math easier in practice. It’s not that we actually still believe in newtonian ideas.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            that more broadly would make sense to me. But i still wouldn’t consider polsci to be polsci, i would consider it to be a sub set of sociology.

            • Donkter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s all kind of a subset of sociology. Why do groups make decisions? It’s down to individual psychology. But that’s similar to saying all science is derivative of physics. It’s technically true, but it does us more favors to split it up.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            No, the machines tend to be abstract. Such as an infinite paper tape that can manipulate symbols.

          • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            No, computer engineering tends to focus more on hardware. When I was doing that kind of thing in college, computer engineering did things like chip design and logic boards and so on. I had courses on DSP and VLSI, multiple assembly languages, RISC vs CISC systems, and so on. In my university, it was considered a subspecializqtion of electrical engineering, with the first two years of undergraduate study being identical.

            When I switched over to CS, I was doing things like numerical analysis and software systems architecture.

            Both majors used math, but CE (as an EE major) required students to go through (iirc) calculus 5, and I think that CS majors could stop at calc 3 but would end up having to do different kinds of math after that.

      • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

      • lobut@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • lobut@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            lol, okay that made me chuckle … I liked that.

            Although, we both eventually got into the jobs for what we studied for. We’ve made that jokes both in university and when we got into respective fields.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

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

      • Frogodendron@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        “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?!).

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

          • exocrinous@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            What are soft sciences supposed to do when experimental methods are either impractical or unethical?

            Same thing astronomy did.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Astronomy has roughly a 400 year head start on most of these. Thousands of years if you’re counting astrology (which was good observations mixed together with nonsense).

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  And Astronomy has had much, much longer to make those observations. They can also gather potentially millions of data points instead of five.

  • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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!

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          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

  • JayObey711@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    As someone who spontaneously decided to study history / political science instead of physics, although I have been preparing to be a physicist the entire time, I can proudly say: At least I am happy. I spend most of my time doing fun and fulfilling things, instead of showing up at uni at 8 in the morning and arriving home at 8 in the evening just to work on homework. All my friends went into mint and they are stressed, don’t have time to do anything and just seem the worst i have ever seen them.

  • pseudo@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes, Physics majors are a bit too hierachical with science like there were not doing non-rigorous math themselves but let’s be honest: on the other spectrum of real/fake science it is very very hard to find actual people seriously studying the field, like you have to go up to doctorant to find the kind of serious study you find in physic undergrad.