Full time science diet

An individual who is based scientifically.

Government makes statement on behalf of independent media company over their government funded media badge.

I guess. This is a coincidence? I'm on a full time science diet though so no it’s not.

by RobTheConqueror April 18, 2023

San Francisco Science Fair

When two dudes get together to have sex, but one fills his asshole with vinegar, and the other covers his dick in baking soda. Upon insertion the baking soda and vinegar will react creating an ass volcano.

"From what I've heard, Kyle and Jake are super gay for eachother"
"They are! I heard they got a 14 inch toy and they've also experimented with the San Francisco Science Fair"

by bakeddeepfriedbeans January 23, 2024

Liberal Arts and Science Academy

A public magnet high school in Austin, Texas. Commonly abbreviated to "LASA" or "LASA HS" although the latter doesn't really make sense since "Academy High School" is redundant. Used to share a building with LBJ but moved to the former Eastside/Johnston campus to relieve overcrowding.

Historically the school is one of the best academically, consistently ranked top 50 in the US. Prospective students must submit an entrance application to demonstrate their prowess. The school boasts high test scores and near perfect rates of graduation and acceptance to colleges. However, there is concern that admin is letting in too many retards after the move to the new building and that the school will become less "elite".

The atmosphere is quite sleepy and studious for the most part; no fights or bomb threats unlike every other school in Austin ISD. However, depression is commonplace and sleep deprivation is a flex. It's rare to go a day without hearing "kill myself" multiple times.

There is a high percentage of zesty people and other degenerates. The classes are filled with Asians and Indians who carry everyone else. Luckily, the Blacks at this school are chill (all 4 of them). Ironically it is one of the most diverse high schools in the district since many of them are 80%+ Mexican.

But despite being a respectably sized 5A school and having such a prestigious (so far) reputation, no one outside of AISD actually knows about it. It is unknown why LASA is so mysterious in the public eye.

LASA Kid #1: "Yo how do you use the Banach-Alaoglu Theorem for the function that satisfies the Riesz Representation Theorem over the Compact Hausdorff Space for question #1?"
LASA Kid #2: "Skibidi Balls"
LASA Kid #1: "Aww, thank you so much for the help pookie bear! Pull up to my house tonight; let's finish our homework and have gay sex!!!"
LASA Kid #2: "Sorry, but I have 29 different extracurricular activities to attend. I need to be constantly busy, depressed, and sleep deprived so I can sell my soul to Harvard."
LASA Kid #1: "Awesome! I'm gonna kill myself at exactly 8:42 PM tonight by ingesting 750 milligrams of potassium cyanide, chemical formula KCN."
LASA Kid #2: "What a totally average and normal conversation here at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy."

Vikramaditya Kusika Dattachaudhuri: "I go to the Liberal Arts and Science Academy."
Jack Smith (Westlake student): "Never heard of it, where's that?"
Vikramaditya: "In Austin ISD"
Jack: "Is it a private school?"
Vikramaditya: "Erm... acktually☝️🤓, LASA's a public school. It's also the best one in the Austin area, according to USNEWS and Niche."

Kevin Ling: "I go the Liberal Arts and Science Academy"
TreVontarious D'arquise Quantell VII (LBJ student): "I'll beat yo ass nerd"

by LuckFasa October 3, 2024

Hard Problem of Science & Pseudoscience

The problem of motivation, not method. Both can use data, jargon, and peer review (see creation "science"). The core difference might be the attitude toward evidence: science seeks to test and potentially disprove its ideas; pseudoscience seeks to defend a preordained conclusion. The hard problem is that this is a psychological distinction about the practitioners, not a methodological one. You can't look at a paper and always tell. A bad scientist (cherry-picking data) is using pseudoscientific tactics, while a clever pseudoscientist can mimic the form of science perfectly. The line is blurred because it's about internal intent, which is invisible.

Example: Flat Earthers run experiments (lasers over water) they claim prove no curvature. Scientists point out flawed methodology. The Flat Earthers dismiss it as part of the conspiracy. The hard problem: Their process looks scientific—hypothesis, test, observation. The breakdown is their refusal to accept counter-evidence as valid. But who decides what "valid" counter-evidence is? The scientific community. So, in practice, science is defined by social consensus of what counts as proper evidence, not by a pure, objective rulebook. Pseudoscience is simply what that consensus excludes. Hard Problem of Science & Pseudoscience.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Science

The fundamental paradox that science is a human activity, subject to all our cognitive biases, social pressures, and cultural blind spots, yet it claims to produce objective, universal knowledge about a reality independent of humans. The hard problem is explaining how a process so deeply embedded in flawed human psychology and sociology can successfully "escape" to reveal truths that transcend those very conditions. How does a system built on tentative, peer-reviewed consensus, funding battles, and paradigm shifts manage to land rovers on Mars? The gap between the messy, subjective process and the astounding, objective results is the core mystery.

Example: Two scientists from rival labs, one funded by a corporation, the other by a government grant, both deeply ambitious and prone to confirmation bias, run the same experiment on a new drug. Through a process of mutual criticism, replication attempts, statistical scrutiny, and raw competition, their flawed human efforts converge on a reliable, reproducible result about molecular interactions. The hard problem: How did the truth emerge from that morass of ego and institutional noise? It’s like a hundred painters, all colorblind and trying to sabotage each other’s canvases, somehow collectively producing a photographically perfect landscape. Hard Problem of Science.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Formal Sciences

The paradox that formal systems like mathematics and logic, which are human creations of pure thought and symbol manipulation, describe and predict the physical universe with uncanny, often inexplicable accuracy. These sciences deal with abstract, necessary truths (2+2=4 is true in any possible universe). The hard problem is why these mind-born rule-sets, which require no empirical input, are so deeply "baked into" the fabric of our contingent, empirical reality. It's the question of whether we invent mathematics or discover it, and if we discover it, why is the universe inherently mathematical? The success of the formal sciences suggests a pre-established harmony between human reason and cosmic structure that borders on the mystical.

Example: A mathematician, working purely from axioms and logic, derives a strange, non-intuitive structure called a "Lie group." Decades later, a physicist finds that this exact mathematical structure perfectly describes the behavior of fundamental particles and forces in the Standard Model. The hard problem: How did a game of intellectual symbols, played out on notebooks, anticipate the operational code of the cosmos? It's as if the universe runs on software written in a programming language that the human brain, by sheer coincidence, independently invented for fun. This "unreasonable effectiveness" is the foundational shock of the formal sciences. Hard Problem of Formal Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Cognitive Sciences

The meta-problem of self-reference: Cognitive sciences (psychology, neuroscience, linguistics) use the human mind to study the human mind. This creates a loop where the instrument of investigation is the same as the object under investigation. The hard problem is that any model the mind produces about itself is necessarily incomplete and shaped by the very cognitive biases, limitations, and structures it's trying to map. It's like a camera trying to take a perfect picture of its own lens—the act of observation changes and is constrained by the apparatus. We can never get a "view from outside" of cognition.

Example: A neuroscientist uses an fMRI machine (designed and operated by human brains) to study which brain regions activate during decision-making. The conclusions of the study are then processed, understood, and believed by other human brains. The hard problem: The entire epistemic chain is made of "brain stuff." If human cognition is systematically flawed in some way, that flaw would be baked into the scientific methods, instruments, and interpretations, making it invisible to us. We are using a potentially faulty compiler to debug its own source code. Hard Problem of Cognitive Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026