Baguette

Sorry but in France we say “Ouaf” signature look of supériorité

We will strike cancer down with the power of science! I am so hopeful for medical progress in the next decade

Interstellar travel is possible after all

AI image

Tldr ftw

This graph gives the impression that the total installation number has been multipliés x4 or X5 while it is not the case when looking at the raw numbers.

Any variation can look impressive if you zoom enough, that's why you need a baseline at 0. This way you see thé entire scale of the phenomenon

Cocorico

Bruits de noyade

Good to see not everything is going through enshitification. Thanks Proton!

Yeah we won't be needing proper raytracing with this kind of tech it's mind blowing

The quality is really superior to what was shown with Lumiere. Even if this is cherry picking it seems miles above the competiton

This never gets old lmao

It is just a logical statement. A theory must maximize data fitting and minimize assumption. You cannot beat a theory that fits all the data with only one assumption.

Sadly we are not having a debate as I'm giving arguments and you are not willing to criticize them on a core level. I hope other people find this one sided conversation useful.

Where do you see belief in what I explained? I'm genuinely curious.

It can't be the observations as you can make them for yourself, and you cannot find a model that fits the data better with less assumptions as it already fits the data perfectly and has no assumption beyond "organisms make copy of themselves with mutations"

Then what is it?

Flies are very different than humans, but they are built using the same building blocks and processes.

It is not belief it is observation: humans are composed of cells that contain chromosomes. Genetic data is mixed with errors during reproduction (both with flies and humans) resulting in different characteristics in the individuals of the next generation (observable with flies and humans)

Sexual attactiveness of individuals will depend on their genes and their environment (also based on observation), which will impact their number of offspring, effectively selecting some genes and discarding others.

All of this is based on simple observation and you sée that belief has no place in this line of reasoning.

Of course there is more to flies and humans than evolution, yet evolution is such a simple process that it applies to both! Nature is truly amazing

Religion is the vehicle of monstrosity

I agree it is not straightforward. Evolution arises from gene reproduction, flies are just one easy example because they reproduce very fast. Humans are also using genes reproduction and our evolution can be also be traced. The evidence for evolution is everywhere and it is the simplest explanation that fits all the data.

I agree with you that science publishing can be of variable quality. One solution for the reader IS to never trust one paper alone, scientific knowledge is established when many papers are published about the same topic and give the same conclusions.

Religion is not a theory because it cannot be falsified.

And the theory of evolution is not belief as it can be observed in real time in labs with flies for exemple.

Your equality is therefore incorrect.

Edit: typo

Even if belief is very present in human nature, the scientific method is not a form of belief because it is just selectionning the model that fits best the data.

Coming up with models does not necessarily require intuition either when we can automate this process.

Belief is human, but science is universal.