this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024

700 points (97.2% liked)

Science Memes

14540 readers

1087 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]

700

Blocked 🚫 (mander.xyz)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 158 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Relevant xkcd as always

https://xkcd.com/435/

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Theory without application is useless, isn't it?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

In social science, theory requires application. Otherwise, it's just a cool story, bro.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Theory without application is often the entire point in certain academic circles and if someone comes along and finds a practical use for their mathematically based philosophical musings they delve deeper looking for the pureness

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Until is has a use, technically, it is useless.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

BURN THE HERETIC!

But seriously though, yes, but useless isn't the same as pointless. Art by some definitions is useless, but it can still have a point, even if that point it just to be fun.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If something's fun, it isn't useless.

load more comments (2 replies)

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

I agree. I'm pretty sure a bunch of stuff that Euler did was considered useless until it actually was used hundreds of years later. I'm pretty sure topology had a lot of people wondering what the hell to use it for until it was rediscovered multiple times.

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

I imagine it like this: First we do the useful stuff as much as we can. But at some point it slows down and halts. Then with that knowledge doing useless stuff is easier. So we widen the search. Maybe most of them are really useless but few that can make a breakthrough is enough. Now back to useful stuff. This process is not discrete of course it's more dynamic and fluid. Does this make sense?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 50 points 8 months ago (13 children)

Calling a made up construct "the absolute truth" is hilarious

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

The test to know if anything is an absolute truth is if it is called an absolute truth. If it is called an absolute truth, then it isn't an absolute truth. If it isn't called an absolute truth, then it isn't an absolute truth. Absolute truths don't exist. If someone tells you something is an absolute truth, stop listening to them.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

They're made up constructs that reflect the absolute truth when applied correctly (from his perspective).

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The way I see it, axioms and notation are made up but everything that follows is absolute truth

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

I’d say if your axioms don’t hold you wouldn’t go far in your quest for truth.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (7 children)

If someone needs another existental crisis here's a prompt:

Is math universal or is it a system of thought invented by humans and it only makes sense to us?

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

Math is definitely universal. The math behind things in science wouldn't suddenly change on different alien planets. Take things like V = IR. That relies on multiplication and division. It's gonna be the same on other planets. The units, notation, etc. will be different but the concepts would be the same.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I'm no STEM major, so I may be way off, but this is how I see it.

V = IR isn't math. It's a way of defining the relationship and outcome of two specific physical qualities. It says that we combine the resistance of a medium ( R) with the current flowing through it (I) into another ~~joint~~ emergent quality we call voltage (V). We do this because it makes our understanding of the physical world easier to manage since this relationship has helpful applications.

Math is simply patterns in the relationships of quantities. It excludes any physical units or qualities. In other words, math is the art of counting.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

How we express math is particular to us, though it'd be commonly decipherable. Math is more and more globally standardized as more of it gets globally acknowledged as "the most useful" way to do math. E.g. place holder 0 vs Roman Numerals. Ratios are conceptually universal to any species that bothers measuring. Quantification maybe less so. Especially if their comprehension of advanced sciences/engineering is somehow intuitive instead of formally calculated.

If a space faring species has a concept of proportions/ratios, but not individual identity of numbers, presenting Meters as a portion of the speed of light might be a universal way discern the rest of our math. Water as Liters might be more accessible, depending on how they think of water.

Sets and Axioms are purely conceptually representative and so viable as long as they're capable of symbolic abstraction at all.

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

Universal. How else would you calculate or solve equations?

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

Like our ancestors with goat entrails and a magic talking stick.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

All I know is that 1 = 0.9999…

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

1 = 9/9, yeah

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

Then how can it be Truth at all?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If 3 * 1/3 = 3/1 * 1/3 = 3/3 = 1

And 1/3 = 0.3333…

Then 0.3333… * 3 = 0.9999… = 1

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

I know how it works, I'm asking how can something so offensive be a universal truth?

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Math is a tool!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Therefore mathematicians are tools? QED or whatever

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

They are tool specialist by career. As for themselves, that is an individual assessment.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Visible disgust

Maynard

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Tool is a math?

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 71 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

The number of people having jobs is record low in this picture

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Because they are students? Both are high demand professions, I don't get it.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago

There's a real gravity to that statement and it definitely adds up.

load more comments