this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
14 points (85.0% liked)

Science Memes

9984 readers
1971 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Both wrong.

It's just a process. Find evidence, make theories. Find more evidence, adjust theories or replace them.

People gotta stop injecting their religious beliefs about "the truth" or "socialism" or whatever into science. These are just your personal beliefs and science don't give a shit about any of that.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

See: Lysenkoism

Though being aware of the biases involved in the literature is always important

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Big Bang Theory has that silly name because it's what people trying to discredit it termed it.

There's bias in everything, but empirical evidence wins out in the end.

[–] needthosepylons@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Empirical evidence wins out in the end but... it's not that simple. One name said a lot about this : Thomas Kuhn. Try giving The structure of scientific revolutions a read whenever you can. It's old and there are more contemporary work, but Kuhn is still a reference in epistemology.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Scientific method is the best tool we have to achieve "pure objectivity and truth", but it's not perfect. The primary point of failure being application of it by extremely subjective creatures.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I know right? It baffles me how transphobes use "science" to be transphobic, like Sir/Ma'am, where in the chromosomes is it written "woman" or "man" or any of the stereotypes attached to those words. We made that shit up, we looked at what was there and then added meaning to it that wasn't there. We interpreted the data according to our current age's biases. Sure those wiggly things usually determine the parts you're born with, but where in those parts is it written that women are soft and belong in the kitchen?

If you were to do some unethical science you can even add/block hormones that go into the fetus during its development for it to develop bits that it wouldn't normally. Hell, you can do that well after birth and new features will develop because human bodies are rather "customisable"

sorry rant over, I don't often get to talk about this from this perspective because getting into the intricacies of subjectivity of science in regards to how human beings and our languages are flawed is a bit too advanced for the average bigot

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

Or if you want a shorter version, "circle the part of the chromosome where it says men hold the door open for women". There are obviously differences between what's written in genes and the billion little social rules surrounding gender. It makes sense to have different terms to differentiate biology from social rules, and "sex" and "gender" can do that just fine.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

how so?

edit: if you mean the "Sir/Ma'am" bit I belive it is a valid assumption to make that a transphobe wouldn't consider other options lmao

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Ironic and presumptuous.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A person's sex is science, but their gender is a social construct. I sometimes wonder if trans people would even be a thing if there were no socially defined gender roles (or assumed gendered language) and people could just be who they are. I suspect there would not be as there wouldn't be anything to be "trans" from.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A person's sex is science, but their gender is a social construct.

Even sex is not the black and white dichotomy most people make it out to be. The way we define and dictate someone's sex isn't reproducible for everyone. The intersex population is larger than what most people assume, and can vary in ways that defy the way we normally evaluate sex. It can range from someone having different chromosomal pairings, to having a varied arrangement of secondary sexual organs.

Anyone saying that someone's sex is scientifically dependent on "x" is either ignorant, or academically dishonest.

[–] yetiftw@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

arguably science itself has been constructed in a social context ie a social construct

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

Don't forget all the politics involved in getting funds for your research. Fun times!

[–] RoseTintedGlasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What's the point in memes where it's putting something that's just uncontroversially true and not really that complex of an idea next to a twink wojack

Edit: just read the comments smh. My bad OP you're entirely in the right for this, apparently the basic idea that the dominant ideology reproduces itself is too complicated for people to get, also someone calling you a tankie for this lol

keep the tankies under capitalism, lets figure something better out.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

If all scientific knowledge were to suddenly disappear and we were to start from square one, it would all reappear exactly like it is. We would rediscover gravity, evolution, the expansion of the universe, etc.

Just because some scientific research is funded by entities with a bias, does not mean that the process of science is corrupted.

Often times the results of the research funded by biased corporations and institutions results in discovery that is contrary to the goal of the entity and so they just stop funding it. Sometimes they actively try to bury the discoveries, however the process of science will ensure that the truth comes to light eventually.

This meme has a poor understanding of science.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

If all scientific knowledge were to suddenly disappear and we were to start from square one, it would all reappear exactly like it is.

Three competing theories of evolution arose, independently, in our world - one from British and European scientists studying the tropics, another from Russian and US scientists studying Siberia and northern North America, and a third by a Japanese scientist studying statistics and genetics. While the current consensus in evolutionary biology is that all three are true (at different timescales), the vast majority of people (and even other scientists) only know the first. This is partly because Darwin got there first, and partly because a lot of powerful people benefit from spreading social Darwinist woo.

Ironically, in a post-apocalyptic world, the powers that be would probably support the symbiotic theory, with Darwinism frowned upon as selfish individualism.

however the process of science will ensure that the truth comes to light eventually.

As Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. Science is probably the best tool we currently have to find the truth (assuming there is a truth), but it is always important to remember that it is produced by humans, funded by interests and (mostly, though this is changing) published by for-profit journals. When reading a paper, always read the conflict of interest and funding details, and hope the authors are being honest.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Whoever posted this meme has a poor understanding of science and isnt anything different than religious nut jobs or conspiracy types denying scientific progress

I really dislike the types, because they love using the results of science to proclaim their ignorant view points. If you really dislike science so much, for whatever reason, then reject all that comes from it. All the great food we have? Don't eat it. Don't wear modern clothes, go live in a cave wearing the skin of a bear or something.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, agree. But I learned from this thread that the full pic of the femboy is apparently riding a dildo which kinda fits with the masturbatory dialog, and now I'm not sure what it's trying to say.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Regarding the masturbation and the dildo, well I suppose I have been had.

But I still disagree with that other person.

Science is better thought of as a verb, not a noun. To suggest that science is inherently corrupted by societies is to conflate science the noun with science the verb. Wank wank.

[–] blackris@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The process of science is not corrupted but deeply flawed. It is like that, because we as a species are as well. Science is the best method we have to create secured knowledge, but it is far from perfect. Things like predatory journals, lazy to non existing peer reviews in established publications, reports about scientists who are under pressure to create positive results even if their research had none of those etc. show us that .

Capitalism plays a big part in this problem. To plainly reject that is simply naive.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Science isn't "deeply flawed", sorry, that's nonsense. Are there some players here and there that try and abuse the system, of course. These players are then rooted out and exposed, that's how it works. If someone tries to hurry research, someone else will discover it.

This entire "capitalism is the root of all evil" is nonsense too. At its core, it's the freedom to trade directly with one another and there is nothing wrong with it. Strong rules need to be in place to control that process ans the lack of that is what causes do many issues, especially in the US.

Just writing on your mobile phone, claiming science is deeply flawed, is just facepalmingly stupid.

[–] blackris@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you really think that the core of capitalism is what you described, you have no clue what you are talking about. Funny, that you ended that by calling other peoples claims stupid.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Just out of curiosity, what do you think capitalism is?

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The only thing that can correct bad science is good science.

That’s the great thing about the scientific method, as soon as someone presents a flawed hypothesis which is then subjected to scrutiny, good science has the opportunity to shine a light on the mistakes.

The process of science is not deeply flawed. Just because capitalism does indeed incentivize some to stray away from the scientific method does not then make science itself flawed.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Capitalism is a big problem, but to say that the scientific method is deeply flawed because of capitalism is not correct.

[–] blackris@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We seem to be talking about different things here: science and the scientific method. Science is a process involving many different institutions and individuals with their personal worldviews, problems and interests. The state of the scientific method is a whole other discussion, I am not able to lead.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

The process of science is called the scientific method.

There certainly are people who call what they do ‘science’, but if they aren’t using the method, they are not doing science properly.

[–] Arcity@feddit.nl -1 points 2 months ago

Too bad you can't test your theory either. So stop pointing fingers.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but homeopathy is still bullshit.

I know that's not necessarily the intention of this meme but it's way too common in woo circles.

[–] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

considering the political skew on lemmy i think this is more an admonition of capitalism than of science

[–] wick@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Even so, academics is such a niche and marginal problem compared to, like, anything else capitalism fucks up.

Scientists are still doing good things all the time under capitalism. Environmental sciences criticize problems that capitalists are loath to address all the time, but also apparently capitalism funded their research for a century.

This post is just more populist tanky agitprop to make dumb people angry and distrust institutions and science whenever it tells them something they don't like.

[–] LordSinguloth@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That ain't what yall were saying 2 years ago

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Be real here. If you were saying "science is a process" in 2022, you were following it up with "and that's why we shouldn't trust the results of any of these thousands of studeis until they've had several decades in which to be proven wrong, by which time I won't have to wear a mask or get the shot anyway. I therefore reserve the right to do neither, immunocompromised people who happen to be standing near me be damned. Remember when we thought cigarettes were good for you?"

[–] LordSinguloth@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 months ago

Cute assumptions

You know what they say about assuming?

Makes an ass out of U and ME (assUme)