bayside health sciences academy

the health sciences academy is full of privileged, melodramatic people that turn their nose up at everyone not up to their standards. there's no guys in the academy and the girls treat the 5 guys that actually go there like they are gods on earth. other than that, its pretty cool. The medical teachers are dope and super great at teaching. Don't come here for the social scene is all I'm saying, but you'll have some hella good medical teachers

"where you going to school next year?"
"im going to bayside health sciences academy"
"okay just don't act like a pretentious asshole and you'll be fine"

by mbvbitch July 3, 2021

Hard Problem of the Social Sciences

The prediction problem. Unlike in physics, where you can isolate variables and predict an eclipse to the second, social sciences (economics, political science, sociology) deal with complex, reflexive systems. Humans react to predictions, changing the outcome (the "Lucas Critique"). The hard problem is: Can you have a real science of human society if its core subjects alter their behavior upon hearing your findings? True scientific laws are supposed to be invariant. Social "laws" are more like trends that expire once people know about them, making the field perpetually one step behind a moving target.

Example: An economist develops a perfect model predicting stock market crashes. Once published, investors see it and adjust their behavior to avoid the predicted conditions, thereby preventing the very crash the model forecasted. The model is now wrong. The hard problem: The act of studying the system changes it. This makes falsification—the bedrock of science—incredibly tricky. Social science thus often ends up explaining the past very well (postdiction) but failing at predicting the future, which is what we usually want from a science. Hard Problem of the Social Sciences.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

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

Science Spectrum Theory

The framework that rejects the binary "science vs. pseudoscience" divide, arguing instead that all knowledge-seeking practices exist on a multidimensional continuum of epistemic rigor. The spectrum is defined by axes like: testability, openness to falsification, methodological transparency, peer consensus, predictive success, and self-correction. "Hard" physics sits at one end, characterized by math, precise prediction, and controlled experiments. "Softer" fields like sociology or evolutionary biology, which deal with complex, non-repeatable systems, occupy a different region, emphasizing explanatory coherence and consilience of evidence. Even protosciences and failed theories occupy a place on the spectrum based on their methods, not just their conclusions. Pseudoscience is not a different category, but the far end of the spectrum where practices become dogmatic, evidence is cherry-picked, and contrary data is explained away rather than incorporated.

Example: Consider three points on the spectrum. Physics is far along the "predictive precision" axis. Evolutionary Biology is strong on the "explanatory power/consilience" axis but weaker on "immediate testability in a lab." Homeopathy scores very low on "consistency with established knowledge" and "methodological rigor in trials," but might have mid-range scores on "social consensus" within its community. Science Spectrum Theory says the task isn't to draw a line, but to plot a practice's coordinates. A field can become more "scientific" by moving along these axes—like economics incorporating better data analysis—rather than by magically crossing a mythical demarcation border.

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 the Natural Sciences

The tension between reductionism and emergence. The natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) succeed by breaking things down into constituent parts. But the most interesting phenomena—life, consciousness, ecosystems—are emergent properties of complex systems that seem irreducible. The hard problem is: Can a "theory of everything" that only describes the most fundamental particles ever explain why a heart breaks or a forest thrives? Or does each level of complexity (chemical, biological, ecological) require its own irreducible laws and explanations, making the reductionist dream incomplete?

Example: You can have a perfect, complete physics textbook describing quarks and forces, a perfect chemistry textbook on bonding, and a perfect biology textbook on genetics. None of them will contain the chapter "How to Be a Brave Wolf Protecting Its Pack." That behavior emerges from a dizzying hierarchy of systems. The hard problem: The natural sciences are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the reductionist belief that everything is just particles. The hard place is the obvious reality that "just particles" cannot account for meaning, purpose, or complex agency without something being lost in translation. Hard Problem of the Natural Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of the Exact Sciences

The chasm between mathematical perfection and physical reality. Physics and mathematics are the "exact sciences" because they use precise, logical formalism. But the hard problem is that our most accurate mathematical models (like quantum field theory) describe a reality that is utterly alien to human experience and sometimes logically paradoxical. The math works with breathtaking precision, but does it mean we understand reality, or just that we've found a consistent symbolic game that predicts instrument readings? Are we discovering the universe's blueprint, or just inventing a language it happens to obey in our experiments?

Example: Schrödinger's equation in quantum mechanics predicts outcomes with insane accuracy. But its solution, the wave function, describes a particle being in multiple places at once (superposition) until measured. The hard problem: The mathematics is exact and clear. The physical interpretation of what's "really happening" is a murky, unresolved philosophical nightmare. The exact science gives us perfect numbers but no coherent story. It’s like having a flawless instruction manual written in a language where every word has seven contradictory meanings. Hard Problem of the Exact Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026