this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
648 points (97.0% liked)

Science Memes

10340 readers
1931 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.


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 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

While theory and hypothesis are not the same if you are talking about science, in general everyday use theory is used as a synonym.

In wiktionary: 5. A hypothesis or conjecture. [from 18th c.]

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Me when people treat theory as if its concrete fact that they themselves penned and proved.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

And then say "it's just a theory" to completely dismiss something they don't like.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Or conjecture

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

When some says nukeuller

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I suggest we use new words.

Hypothesis - the great pondering
Theory - mystical workings of the orb

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The word theory has become (or at best is becoming) a clusterfuck of whatever, much like the word literally.

And we don't even have (normal/easy/exact) replacements for those words.
Those words were already the scientific terms for nerds. But normies normied them into normedom, literally theorised into a fuck.

(Also unfortunately Im a normie, but that doesn't mean I can't bitch about it)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I like the word "model", I think it's a better fit even. We're modeling reality. Some models turn out to be shit, while others are well tested giving confidence that they mimic reality well.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

But isn't model used differently in different disciplines?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

~~Some~~ Most models turn out to be shit

Ftfy

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

Every model is wrong. Some are useful.

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

All models are shit. Some of them are useful tho

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Me when someone says “addicting” when “addictive” makes more sense

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

To me, addicting feels like it should be a verb, like cigarette advertising is addicting youth, whereas addictive is an adjective

[–] [email protected] 102 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Jealousy is just envious because it didn't make it into the Seven Deadly Sins.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Envy is the emotion behind coveting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is my biggest pet peeve and I will die on this hill.

Yes, I drive my family nuts.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Yes, they are the Deez family, and yes they have nuts. Enough doxing.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nobody in the history of humanity has been asked how pedantic they are.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

How pedantic are you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Just a joke. It's just a way to set up the joke. It doesn't make sense, practically, but it isn't supposed to be part of the funny bit. Or it is... It could be, in an ironic way.

🤷‍♂️ Take it with a pinch of salt.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

How about when they say "a phenomena"?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Mmh... Careful now...

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

When someone uses “hesitant”

When they mean “reluctant”

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

This is a personal attack.

Edit: who's downvoting jokes in this community? 😂

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Read the other day that there actually isn't any official distinction. It's just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Normally, I'm all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like "Evolution is just a theory." I will physically fight people on that, If need be.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

I remember seeing somewhere that the "colloquial" usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it's hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don't have a lot else to stand on.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Evolution is just a theory

And so is gravity, and the concept of colors.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Theory meaning "unproven assumption" is one of the definitions in Merriam-Webster so it is not a new definition.

You're just angry word means something you don't want it to mean. Just like the literally-figuratively crowd.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I think anyone who uses the word "literally" to mean anything other than "in a literal sense" is a moron who never actually thinks about what the words coming out of their mouth mean, and I always will.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

People who do not seem to understand that language is different than they wish it to be, are the actual morons. Not only morons, but pampas morons. Language is messy, imprecise, and always in flux. Language is a construct of the collective of its speakers, not you alone, nor anyone else. This is why we have specific lexicons for various industries, and academic fields. Even those are constantly being updated, and revised.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To be perfectly fair, you can't "prove" or "disprove" a theory. You can only discover new evidence that supports the theory or another competing theory. Multiple competing theories can be equally accepted as correct.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

The issue is people using exactly that definition to reject science. We also have a theory of gravity, but gravity itself is an observation. Evolution should be too, regardless of our theories about it.

Also, String Theory isn't doing anyone any favors.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

If you consider gross misuse (i.e. mixing up "theory" and "hypothesis") to be a valid form of etymology (e.g. making new words), I have a question to axe.

(I apologize to linguists' families who now have to clean up bodily fluids and/or arrange a funeral.)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

The aks variant pronunciation of ask is fine. It is part of a dialect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Could you explain the difference to me? 🙏

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

A law describes what happens, a theory explains why. The law of gravity says that if you drop an item, it will fall to the ground. The theory of relativity explains that the "fall" occurs due to the curvature of space time.

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

I was referring to the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Theorem would also be interesting to add to the mix.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Science can never answer "why." In your example, the question why is just moved, from "why does it fall?" to "why does mass distort space-time?" In both cases physics just describes what happens.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (10 children)

But that is why it happens. Causality in most certainly something that can be discerned scientifically.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In physics we call some results "laws" and some "theories." The difference has absolutely nothing to do with our certainty in the validity of the results.

Newton's Laws of motion are called that because they can be written as concise mathematical equations, and allof the content is there. Einstein's Theory of special relativity is just as valid, and even contains Newton's Laws as a special case, but the content of the theory can't be written in simple, concise equations. There are several equations included in special relativity, but they do not represent the entire content. For example, the most important statement of the theory cannot be written in equation form at all: "The measured speed of light in a vacuum will be the same for all observers in inertial reference frames, regardless of the relative speed of their reference frame."

Darwin's Theory of Evolution likewise cannot be written in concise statements (mathematical or otherwise), but our certainty in its validity is no less than in Newton's Laws.

Another important subtlety: I was careful to say that we are certain of the validity. People who don't know better are fond of saying that Newton's Laws are wrong. This is a fallacy. Scientific laws and theories can only be valid or not, they can never be true.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

You mean, as opposed to lemma? I've never been confident that I understand the difference between those. :(

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›