The Scientific Method
It sounds like you're asking to be impressed, which at the end of the day is a subjective thing.
I remember as a teenager watching the original Star Trek and thinking there will never, ever be computers that talk intelligently.
Fast forward the clock nearly 50 years and we have hand-held devices that talk at least as intelligently as the computer in the show.
The advances in AI theory are both astounding and at a primal level, a little frightening. There was a recent article in an insurance journal that explored the legal implications of AI's in a self-driving cars that must decide whether to save the driver or risk killing a pedestrian.
Who would have foreseen such dilemmas even ten years ago?
Scientific achievements do not require you to be amazed by them in order for them to be amazing. We have listed numerous recent incredible achievements and we've not even touched the surface. That you don't know about or understand them does not affect the achievements; it just shows your laziness and ignorance. You've produced nothing in this discussion but a Shania Twain lyric while you have doubled down on stupidity.
You are wasting everyone's time with your immaturity and narcissism. I will leave you to Cofty and the others.
scientific method. ..and here I though it was going to be about sex.. ah well
"And more postmodern bullshit from SBF. So fucking boring."
the great cofty has spoken. is it safe to say that cofty didn't like slimboyfat's thoughtful comment?
epigenetics is not proven to be all that important compared to natural selection or sexual selection...
I ask for recent scientific theories. everyone tells me I am an idiot and give me examples of incremental change. Triggered much?
What THEORY is driving AI?
Neural networks? Been around for 60 years.
See where I am going?
fact is universities these days are rampant with Marxist propaganda. no wonder we are only seeing incremental changes!
"Very nice, too bad the state of science today leaves alot to be desired,"
You are confused. What you may call science may not fit the definition of science, therefore it's not science. Anyone can claim they are scientists or to be using the scientific method, but if it doesn't pass the smell test then it's not science.
@CG"...fact is universities these days are rampant with Marxist propaganda. no wonder we are only seeing incremental changes!"
Are you listening to talk radio too much? Give yourself a break. It's a f**ing cult too!!!
never a jw, you need to look at what is happening on campuses all over the world. they are infested with SJW ideology (Marxism) which force lecturers to tip-toe around a bunch of crybabies who flies into a fit if they get a low grade.
Just the other day I read how a bunch of students disrupted a university class bc they felt it was racist to have lectures during the Puerto Rico disaster.
Seems reasonable to you?
"DNA is like 70 years ago... evolution 150..." - CG
So you are suggesting that our knowledge and understanding of these 2 ideas has either not improved over that period of time or that these theories have not changed...
Based on your posts, it is quite clear that you do not understand enough about science to realise you do not understand enough about science.