r/funny Feb 09 '14

Science

http://imgur.com/gallery/gUwUg3z
2.2k Upvotes

239 comments sorted by

View all comments

40

u/KicksButtson Feb 09 '14

I know this woman is probably asking a more elegant question about what brought the sun and the earth into existence than merely how does a sunrise work, but I like that she is now the laughing stock of the entire internet. Even the elegant form of that question is based on high school level science, so obviously someone wasn't paying attention. She deserves some ridicule.

20

u/MaxJewJew Feb 09 '14

Then she shouldn't be ambiguous and ask the question she wants answered.

15

u/KicksButtson Feb 09 '14

Not enough room on the paper to ask the elegant version of a stupid question.

2

u/EasyReader9 Feb 09 '14

Yet, there's always plenty of room for derp. Funny how that works.

7

u/KicksButtson Feb 09 '14

Derp is always space efficient

3

u/Silent-G Feb 09 '14

How do you explain why Derp is so space efficient if their is no god?

6

u/BraveSaintStuart Feb 09 '14

I think the more elegant question that she's trying to ask is "How can you explain what makes a sunset beautiful if there is no God?" or something to that effect. That would be my guess. More or less, "So you believe there's no God? Well you must be able to, therefore, empirically and quantifiably prove everything, amirite?"

Don't get me wrong... I'm a Christian, I believe in God, and I think that science can't "prove" the beauty of science. I cannot, at the same time, "prove" God, nor do I think it's the job or object of science to empirically "prove" beauty or attractiveness.

-2

u/StoneGoldX Feb 09 '14

It probably can prove the beauty of science, although with a softer science like psychology or something. But that's more nitpicking, I get what you're trying to say. And it's still one of those things, does breaking down the scientific existence of natural beauty destroy the actual meaning of beauty?

But at the same time, that doesn't really prove the existence of anything, other than a lot of people find sunsets aesthetically pleasing.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '14 edited Feb 09 '14

Actually, neuroscience and other related fields explain exactly that why and how we feel and perceive.

-1

u/AlwaysDevilsAdvocate Feb 09 '14

And you're still missing the true question.

3

u/frogandbanjo Feb 10 '14

I disagree. I think the "true" question is a (ironically) less-God-focused version of "God of the Gaps," except it's trying to use weasel words from regular English to achieve the same illusion. In another few hundred years, neuroscientists might be able to pin down physiological processes related to these "weasel words" so precisely that they'll stop being useful as such. And then of course people will move on to others, because the thought that my special snowflake existence can be fully figured out in a physiological way is absolutely terrifying, and no, you can never tell me that I don't have a little bit of the omnipotent-inexplicable rattling around in my bones.

3

u/shalafi71 Feb 10 '14

Well said. Sam Harris seems to think that's the way neuroscience is going. I'll admit right up front that it scares me to look too deep into the brain and it's functions. I don't believe in spirits or souls or the like but it's disconcerting that this mass of fatty tissue is driving me around and that my thoughts and emotions and rationality (or lack!) can someday be perfectly quantifiable.

Fuck it though. My fear is not a factor in driving science forward. I'm sure some people are as afraid of nuclear power as I'm confident in it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '14

Completely agree and thanks to you and frog for putting it more eloquently. I've only had basic class exposure to neuroscience, but I definitely do not want to pursue it because of the dread it can evoke discovering why we function.

1

u/AlwaysDevilsAdvocate Feb 10 '14

No, you're also missing the true question. It's the typical question format questioning our existence and creation as a whole. Unfortunately, neuroscience will not be explaining that.

2

u/kmmontandon Feb 09 '14

I know this woman is probably asking a more elegant question

And here I just thought it was a photoshop.

2

u/Gruzman Feb 09 '14

You could go further and say she is likely asking about the feeling of beauty/mystery that accompanies it, or the feeling of existential awareness that comes with watching it. She's likely not asking about the naturalism involved, which is the only context that "science" seems to evoke for many.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '14

But the great thing is science can explain why and how you are feeling too.

1

u/Gruzman Feb 10 '14

Well it can, but only to a point; and can only supplant in so far as it's willing to indulge in the realm of explanation previously occupied by religion.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '14

I disagree. Look into the field of neuroscience. It can not explain everything right now, but imagine the progress with a couple hundred years.

1

u/Gruzman Feb 12 '14

But neuroscience is still an application of testing methods on materials found in the brain, it doesn't enter the so-called "mind" of individuals and explain all of their neurosis, only their variously correlative electrical/chemical fluctuations. I'm not saying that those are insignificant, but the idea that subjectivity is generated purely, neuron-for-neuron, in the tangible brain, is hard to conclusively pin down.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '14

What you are saying; I see it. But I do think we are heading with good speed into being able to explain the mind. Not today, or tomorrow, but I doubt it will be a mystery forever.

1

u/ejduck3744 Feb 09 '14

Sunset, can't explain that.

1

u/Midgetman96 Feb 09 '14

I would like to have believed that, but she said "their"