◊ Praetorian

 

• Wodin

That's beautiful. *sniff*

 

◊ Wubwub

hahaha.

Damn I'm good.

 

◊ Crying Llama

Hah

 

Conando

Nice...

 

Rubberducky

Just using my resources

 

Elfan

I'll read it for him.

 

Artuse

Ducky was talking about Bad. Shut up. :(

(Now I dont have to put it after every post.)

 

◊ Wubwub

He probably was, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still funny out of context.

 

Shin

Wubwub. :yarr:

 

• ex-sheepy

I translated something in spanish for Artuse once but that was because she paid me 10g

 

• Greybone

Bumping dis

ps. Your picture makes me wanna throwup and laugh at the same time.

 

Denethor

But it's not!

 

◊ bartolimu

Well, to be fair, Physics is basically just Math.

Biology is really Chemistry
Chemistry is really Physics (sup thermodynamics)
Physics is really Math.

Now, if I could get over the whole dissecting live animals thing, I might be able to have that Chemistry degree I set out for eleven years ago.

 

Artuse

I told them that I consider physics to be math /shrug

now do my physics homework, I am stupid and it confuses me :(

(Now I dont have to put it after every post.)

 

◊ Praetorian

math is hard

 

• Oof

math is science

 

Elfan

Reductionism in philosophy describes a number of related, contentious theories that hold, very roughly, that the nature of complex things can always be reduced to (explained by) simpler or more fundamental things. This is said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings. In short, it is philosophical materialism taken to its logical consequences.

Roughly this means that physics is based on mathematics, chemistry is based on physics, biology is based on chemistry, psychology and sociology are based on biology. The first of these are commonly accepted but the last step is very controversial and therefore the frontier of reductionism: evolutionary -psychology and -sociology vs. those who claim people have a soul or another quality that separates them from the material world. Reductionists believe that the behavioral-sciences should become a genuine scientific discipline by being based on genetic biology.

A very typical reductionistic book is 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. It argues that because genes are the fundamental elements of life, all life and all natural behavior can best be understood by studying genetic mechanisms. This way all life is best regarded as temporary accommodation and a reproduction device for the genes.

 

Alsander

Sort of on topic here, it is because of exactly this that everyone whines and complains that all MMORPG quests are stupid FedEx or kill missions. When in fact they arent that simple, people are just dumbing them down.

 

Artuse

math is my hardest subject!

I can understand it but it takes me ages to do problems. It takes me an hour to do what is supposed to be a 10 minute assignment. It really causes me to freak out on tests because they're timed. :(

(Now I dont have to put it after every post.)

 

• ex-sheepy

well yeah duh you're a girl :rolleyes:

 

Rubberducky

Only for women am i rite

 

◊ Praetorian

http://store.yahoo.com/brian-anna/teentalbarbr.html

 

jubelio

math is only hard if you try to stay awake for it.

 

◊ bartolimu

No, actually it's because those quests are all "go to X and kill Y of Z then come back to me for a reward and/or more quests."

Reductionism's intrinsic failure is its assumption of a closed system. This is especially problematic with regard to behavioral sciences. Human beings are by their nature adaptive and reactive, but their responses to situations are determined by more than just genetics. What gene is it that codes for reaction to a sudden earthquake, or a hurricane destroying one's home? How can a person of Brazilian genetic stock learn to live and work in Africa, an area from which his ancestors moved at least 40,000 years ago? How can reductionist arguments explain innovation, aside from some feeble claim that there is an "inventor" gene responsible for all genuine research breakthroughs and windfalls alike?

Attempting to deal with a natural feedback loop via reduction will lead to little more than frustration, as complexity quickly overwhelms whatever basic model the reductionist can muster.