why arent there any dumb scientists
Are you fucking retarded or what
>>17066599its a question is big brain gatekeeping science from dummys?
>>17066597Ever been near a field scientist?
>>17066824Watch your mouth, egghead
Every field has a range of intelligence from brilliant to utter drooling moron.Science and STEM in general are no different.
My new GE refrigerator has a webcam so I can check from my phone to see if I remembered to turn off the light inside before I shut the door instead of driving home to check.An officer just pulled me over for checking while speeding recklessly through a school zone.
>>17066830Even the low end of intelligence in science and math is still leagues above the high end of about 90% of professions.
there are plenty of retards in science, you can tell them by their "X in STEM" handlesI might agree they're not scientists but they are "in science"
>>17066903The guy who grows crops and dreams solutions to his tractor engine issues is more intelligent than the maths professor who cannot remember to eat.
>>17066960>and dreams solutions to his tractor engine issuesdon't sound so smart if he boughtered a cucked tractor innit
>>17066597There are. Especially within the soft sciences. They like to call themselves scientists but most lack critical thinking skills.
Ever talked to an experimentalist? But even those people are far far far more intelligent than the likes of >>17067027
>>17066597selection. the science environment doesn't select for low iq. more exactly scientific discovery
>>17067049Science does not select for discovery, but academic citations. This rarely involves discoveries.
>>17067056discover something great that you can explain and you'll get Nobel
>>17067062that's like saying persistence hunting selected for ultramarathon medals
>>17066826that's a bug not a field
