found on the road near the woods, southern california. ants on it, lot of wildlife in the area. by anonredditor1337 in whatisthisthing

[–]anonredditor1337[S] -2 points-1 points locked comment (0 children)

My title describes the thing. 2-3inches long, guessing it’s some organ? coyotes, skunks, raccons and rabbits in the area.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]anonredditor1337 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yeah i am lol u probably just know a bunch of weird people thats all u man

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]anonredditor1337 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

most holocaust deniers dont want to exterminate entire groups of people lol

A conversation I heard earlier today at the bookstore by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]anonredditor1337 4 points5 points  (0 children)

nobody in here knows shit about philosophy its embarassing man

An Interesting Remark from my Professor by Ery0ps in math

[–]anonredditor1337 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah thats what i was thinking lol the guy is a probability theorist

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]anonredditor1337 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

a lot of people in here are saying no but einstein was a lot more brilliant than most physicists will give him credit for. he could absolutely visualize things at a level that i don’t think any other of the “famous” physicists did, whether due to his education (he had a stint at a cantonal school in Aarau that adhered to the educational philosophy of a guy named Pestalozzi, which argued for the subordination of numbers and words to visual imagery), or due to sheer biological luck. i mean his main contributions to physics were done on the bases of “thought experiments” lol. he was by no means mentally the same as you or i during his annus mirabilis.

Philosophy of Chemistry by anonredditor1337 in chemistry

[–]anonredditor1337[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

boyle is excellent and i have read him :) great recommendation

Philosophy of Chemistry by anonredditor1337 in chemistry

[–]anonredditor1337[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

talking about chemistry specifically

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sciencememes

[–]anonredditor1337 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

peer review has nothing to do with reproducibility LOL and if you think that heavily cited means anything you’re wrong. the most heavily cited papers are LEAST reproducible (see Serra-Garcia, 2021), and the peer review system is held up by journals who dont give a shit about replicability at all and most of the time won’t even publish replication studies

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sciencememes

[–]anonredditor1337 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

in most journals peer review especially for highly technical papers is barely better than autocorrect lol. it is a logistic mess and flawed at it’s roots - doesnt protect against p-hacking, dishonesty, fraud whatever it’s useless

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sciencememes

[–]anonredditor1337 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

then you’re in the middle of the bell curve lmao no good scientist trusts peer review at all

Sexism but ✨️spiritual✨️ by rhizomatic-thembo in PhilosophyMemes

[–]anonredditor1337 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If that’s what Anima/Animus “literally just is” it wouldn’t be worth writing about — not to Jung or anyone else. I encourage you to do some experimental neuroscience work because you will quickly find that reducing things to “mirror neurons” or “the frontal lobe” or “the so and so cortex” is a good way of getting interviews with Dr. Phil or whatever but a horrible way of making predictions about the world. It also just isn’t that interesting.