.webp?h=8 "Merry Fistmas!")
https://old.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/1fznu5u/nobel_winners_in_chemistry/
!ifrickinglovescience !chemistry !biology
For their work at AI to predict protein structures (AlphaFold)
Also
Gook foid wins Nobel Prize in Literature
!bookworms here's my double Nobel thread
Reminder that Alfred Nobel was a based chemistchad
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's literally just because sc*entists are r-slurred and think there's a magical, god-given distinction between """real""" experiments and computation.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Computation gives you a theoretical model and nice pretty curves. They still need to be considered academic.
Running actual experiments validates models and refines them. But it also introduces discrepancies which force you to improve laboratory procedures, develop more refined equipment, or you discover a new fundamental truth which explains the discrepancy.
"Why the frick is Uranus so weird?"
do theoretical math
"There's probably another planet out there messing up its orbit due to gravity and shit, and mathematically it must be X far away and by Z mass."
"Yep there it is"
That's why you combine theory and practice.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Another r-slur who just handwaves "there's actual experiments which are different from theory because they just are okay????"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If actual experiments differ from theory, that just means the theory needs to be updated.
Some stuff in physics matches REALLY well, particularly quantum physics. Like Feynman would always brag that for a few key quantities, the theoretical value and experimental values only differed by like 0.0000000000001%.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's still stuck in this same r-slurred mindset that "actual experiments" have priority over theory, simulation, etc. Scientists question ur assumptions instead of accepting dogma uncritically all the time challenge IMPOSSIBLE
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No it's not, it's just clear fact.
The purpose of theory is to predict reality. If it doesn't match the reality we can directly measure, then it won't match the reality we can't (or simply don't want to for cost etc reasons).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't even know what you're pissed about at this point tbh bb. I never said computer simulations are worthless. In fact, if they match experimental results closely, that means you can extend the computer simulations to predict what will happen in reality. Which is really the whole purpose of science.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
STEMcels rly are low IQ r-slurs wth is ur reading comprehension when did I ever imply u said simulations are useless???
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
KEYLOGGER
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The bread crumbs are piling up. After some tracking I found your IP: 141.11.191.246
Out of luck, son (snap)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Case in point
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!ifrickinglovescience !chemistry !biology is Borpa (a biochem) right on the Soyentism question?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes kill all scientagicians (this is a fusion of the words "scientist" and "magician", implying that scientists are a lot like magicians.)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
the entire point of science is doing math to try and predict observation, then adjusting math to fit it better (or adjusting observation instruments/methods to be more accurate). Without observation you don't have science.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Literally uncritically regurgitated dogma lol worse than religioncels
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The only phil of science this STEMcel knows is Popper and Kuhn, what a classic 😂😂😂 FYI both are completely irrelevant for contemporary phil of science and questions about the epistemic status of non-physical experiments. It's completely uncontroversial (in phil of science departments (aka smarter ppl than STEMcels)) that computer simulations create the same kind of evidence that """actual experiments""" do
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context