Science Memes

10923 readers

2509 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

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

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander 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

[email protected]

1336

Hero (mander.xyz)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

202 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (12 children)

I'm genuinely confused how everyone is reacting to this. What good is research that no one cares to hear?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (11 children)

The research should speak for itself. Assuming the person judging it is competent, it shouldn't need to be "sold".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (7 children)

The people with the money don't understand the science. If you can't convince them that your science is worth investing in then why would they give you money? What's really shocking is that a Nobel prize winner isn't smart enough to understand that.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The problem is not that one has to communicate the significance of research. However since the people with money don't understand the science, they can easily be mislead. And there are also big trends when it comes to funding so you can participate in the buzzword olympics to secure your funding. And this is where you leave the path of just communicating your research and its potential honestly.

The second point where this Nobel prize winner is very right is that it's all about networking, all about names. I don't know why we can't just publish research under a pseudonym, a number would suffice. This would make publishing and reviewing less susceptible to bias.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Same reason why we name amps and volts after Ampere and Volta. It's about recognition and legacy. Imagine you discover some new form of matter, a specialized region of the brain, a key component of time travel, or some algorithm that accurately describes any human interaction. Something revolutionary. Would you be content if it wasn't named for you? Ormr Matter, Ormr's Area, Ormr's Theory of Inverse Relativity, Ormr's Equation for Social Simulation. This is really just the extreme case, but I think it works well to demonstrate the point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Would you be content if it wasn’t named for you?

Yes. I recognize that most people don't think this way, though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Very well put. That’s a big reason why the world is on fire: People trusting bad actors too easily because they know how to talk good.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)