this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
585 points (91.7% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers
1948 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.

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



Research Committee

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
 
(page 3) 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Ok but there’s a given value of this. I have a friend with a PhD in hpv. On matters of hpv I’m definitely wrong if I’m arguing with her, and same for any matter of microbiology or virology. I’m probably wrong in any argument with her about any biology. But when we start talking physics? Nah I’m an engineer and she studies a cancer virus. I’m more likely to be right about how electricity works. Astrophysics though? We might as well be art majors.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think you're right, and maybe add a modification. As a fellow engineer, I'll suggest there's a third option that's more realistic when it comes to knowledgeable and lay people having a discussion:

  • as mentioned in the meme, scientists can and do learn stuff that improves overall understanding.
  • the quest for improved understanding is usually sparked by a strange or unique observation, sometimes by scientists, sometimes by the much larger population of regular folks
  • Provided there is good intent and respect from both parties, I believe it's critically important that people who have observed something unique be able to discuss it somehow with people who have particular skill related to that phenomena

What seems to be missing out of a lot of these misinformation tikTube fights is precisely that fundamental lack of respect. I've observed it's very easy to destabilize a calm discussion with small amounts of inconsiderate speech by people within or outside the discussion. Sometimes it seems purposeful, but the result is a much slowed ability to communicate. That's bad for us all.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yea but I'd like to think most people who are educated in 1 field to know to "stay in their lane" so to speak, and trust the experts in other fields.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Haha I love this

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

They're like both not wrong

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

The kernel of truth here is that the disclosure of funding sources is an important factor when weighing scientific evidence.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago

That's literally the opposite of what "theory" means in a scientific context. You know nothing of science and your opinion is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In my ethics course during the phd program, I was told this was actually a good thing. Their example was pharma companies know how to use their drugs better so they get better results, more true results. If that was true, it's unfortunate it's not the pharma company that also handles treatments then. That course also said that software patents does not exist as a concept.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, if I test my software all is good as well. As soon as the customer does something, he finds bugs, because I didn't thought about that situation.

As the drug user in the end isn't qualified enough, they should exactly test like that and not just what they think is right

But maybe my analogy isn't completely working in that case...

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

There are several problems here. One being you cannot train every nurse or everyone self-adminestering the medicin to be a professional in it. Which was the hidden assumption made in the course. So "test it exactly like that" does not really work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I think, I worded it wrong

Testing exactly for the results you expect is a good start to verify functionality, but you also need tests, that can bring up whatever, so you get a better view of the risk profile

But I'm not a pharmacist, so I'm just taking out of my ass anyway

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

It's all wrong.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Oh man I can't wait for the new patch on gravity

I'm sick of gravity always keeping me down

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It’s not entirely wrong. There is absolutely a bias in what gets studied simply because it requires money to be given to study most things. For example, it’s why some more natural remedies like taking fish oil to help lower cholesterol took so long to have actual scientific backing; there’s no money in widely available remedies so finding funding to do the study was difficult.

You can see this really clearly if you look at more politicized areas, like economics. And for what it’s worth, it doesn’t mean that the evidence that’s generated is bad (although the conclusions drawn from it may be), but that it results in a lack of evidence for opposing viewpoints.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

All those studies being funded by mars to make chocolate seem healthy. it was on last week tonight

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wine producers were behind wine being "healthy in moderation" roo.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

Which I find to be such an excellent example. Since red wine has prolonged contact with grape skins, letting it keep a lot of the flavonoids. It's not incorrect exactly, but you'd still be better off eating grapes or drinking grape juice.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No one’s a winner in this exchange.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

The replier doesn't even know the plural for "company"

Why are we elevating this anti-intellectual drivel?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago

The comment has some merit, some. Look at low fat foods and sugar for instance.

But I'll be honest, there's no "big science" I went to grad school for physics, taught physics, fuck publish or perish.

I now make a fuckton of money writing code and designing algorithms. Haven't published in over a decade.

[–] [email protected] 88 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I once had a colleague who was raised to live by the bible, never questioning it. He was also a massive shitposter. No matter what dumb shit he said, he'd always say that it was just a joke.

Well, one of the few times when I genuinely caught him off guard, was when I explained that science did not actually claim to know the one and only truth. That it wanted to be proven wrong.

I think, that idea itself conflicted with his whole world view. Like, I imagine, his parents also raised him to never question their authority.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Which is why my father will die alone and without love. You do not demand authority, you earn it, and you better recognize when you're being an asshole to your adult children. Also, don't molest my niece and lie to the cops.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I feel like this is a very "shoplifting, public intoxication, nuclear warfare, and jaywalking" way to present things.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

This didn't come out until later, because my sister and niece didn't want to "destroy the family." Once my niece was old enough she told us on her own and I guess that's why I presented in that order. But yes, I agree.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Also, don't molest my niece and lie to the cops.

WHAT. I'm so sorry...

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We believe her and he's a piece of shit. Don't be sorry for me and she's doing great! She's got a lot of supportive and loving uncles. It's crazy how fucking common the crime is and how a grown man can just... Tell the cops, it didn't happen. Case closed.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

She's got a lot of supportive and loving uncles.

Lucky girl.

It's crazy how fucking common the crime is

EXCUSE ME WHAT

And how a grown man can just... Tell the cops, it didn't happen. Case closed.

Wait, so nothing happened? The cops left him?

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

Other than losing his family, no. Nothing happened. The cops thought my sister was lying or there wasn't enough evidence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That's an unfortunately common occurrence when the police are brought in for crimes like this. Most sexual abuse is perpetrated by people who have a relationship with the victim, usually family. 1 in 5 women have been raped, a third of those women were raped between the ages of 11 and 17. 81% of women will experience some form of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetimes. Only 20-40% of rapes are reported to the police. Only about half of those result in arrest. 80% of the arrests are prosecuted. 58% of the prosecutions result in conviction. And 69% of the convicted offenders will serve time in jail/prison. So for every 100 rapists, about 3 of them will go to prison.

source 1 source 2

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

Big Gravity clearly paying folks to say stuff falls down so they can sell more floors.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

That's not even fully accurate because the scientists are doing the studies and achieving results that the companies don't like, so the companies bury it.

[–] [email protected] 142 points 5 months ago (3 children)

This might be heresy, but I feel like saying that "science isn't truth, it's the search for truth", and "if you disagree it's not a disagreement, you're just wrong" is internally inconsistent.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, that's the point. Disagreeing is already part of the scientific method. To disagree with science as a whole is to argue with the method, not the findings.

Imagine two explorers searching for a lost ancient ruins. They come to a path running north/south. One says to go north and the other says south. That's a disagreement. They are both still explorers seeking discovery.

A third observer sees them arguing and says "Ah, you don't know the way. We should not be seeking ruins because I already know what is there. I was told in a dream that the ruins were made by Bigfoot, and he made them invisible and impossible to see. Searching is futile, but I can draw you a map from what I already know is there."

That's not a third opinion of equal validity. It's not even a disagreement. It's just being wrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 124 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It needs to be “if you disagree without evidence.”

They can leave that whole “if you’re not a scientist” bit in the rubbish bin.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

I believe they ment "If you disagree in spite of evidence."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I disagree lol.

This is conflating science and expertise, but it's probably still closer to valid than only "disagree without evidence". A person with no background on the area of interest (or science in general) is likely not to even understand what constitutes evidence of a claim. The set of non scientist people who can produce a reliable body of evidence disproving a theory that has not been found by experts in the same field is likely so small as to be negligible compared to the set of non scientist people with "evidence" from Facebook/other who are in fact just wrong.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago (3 children)

If you disagree without evidence, you're not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it's just as valid as anybody else's. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.

Conjecture is fundamental.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Without new evidence, disagreeing with established science is being wrong. Young earth creationists are wrong because they have no new evidence to contradict established science. Even thoigh the age of the earth was scientifically calculated multiple times and could be revised again with new evidence, flat earthers are wrong because conjecture about existing knowlege without evidence is just being wrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The "you" here is misleading. Consider any scientific field, then now consider all the people you know. How many people do you know, if any, who can propose a theory that is equally valid compared to scientific consensus on some topic in that field? It's unlikely most people are friends with Aristotle or the like or are themselves in that boat.

Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Is it more likely that you or I or the stranger who fills this theoretical situation is actually an over confident moron? Overwhelmingly yes lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago

If you disagree without evidence you may, even by pure chance be correct, however without evidence and methodology to discuss it, you may as well be wrong.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

I feel it should say something like "science isn't 'unchanging truth', written in stone, but rather the unending search for truth".

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›