this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
1221 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

17789 readers
1978 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 33 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But I said the phrase "scientists don't know everything" so now you have to listen to my bullshit.

[–] Mellibird@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

Ahhhhh... Love that line. My brother and his fiance just had a baby and are debating on vaccines or not. They asked me, I said, it's always better to get them and protect your child from as much as you possibly can. Like all of us here are vaccinated. I recommended that they follow what their doctor recommends. My dad chimes in with, "Doctors don't know everything, they're just trying to sell drugs for the pharmaceutical companies, that's all they care about." I looked at him and said, "As someone who studied biology in college, there's a lot that a lot of us don't know. But seeing as that doctor has had significantly more training than I've had, let alone you, I'm going to trust them more than some random article I've read online." He stopped talking to me for a large portion of the day after that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.

[–] shadow_wolf@aussie.zone 22 points 10 months ago (3 children)

That why its such a shame that big corporations can and do regularly buy scientists opinions in exchange for funding setting up a ill give $xxx.xxx for your environmental impact study to not blame my coal mine. Thus by negating the peer review process. science can sadly no longer be taken at face value with out knowing who funded it and why. i miss trusting scientists who are clearly smarter than me because they fell in to the capitalist greed trap RIP real science we should have treated you better and i am sorry.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is why you never trust a single source. For anything. Reputable news organizations have never trusted single sources, they always use multiple sources to verify information they are told. Science is not immune from this, and never has been. And even for those that you've followed in the past, times change, especially in a capitalist society with a massive oligarchy that owns the news companies, like modern western civilizations. Trust, but verify.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

How often does this actually happen? The cases where this does occur stand out because they are rare. I really hate the implication that scientists are not trustworthy because some individuals acted in bad faith. Scientific fraud is real but it doesn't mean you can't trust science.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn't think so.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 10 months ago

True, a sphere would roll off

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Cow goes up, cow comes down, can't explain that.

[–] tinned_tomatoes@feddit.uk 3 points 10 months ago

Damn, you're an older millennial.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 19 points 10 months ago

Who has time for YouTube? I get my conspiracies and lies from millisecond-long TikToks.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 19 points 10 months ago
  • an anecdote your cousin told you
[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Counterpoint: nuh-uh (They et. al., good ol' days).

Citations

They et. al. (Good ol' days). Trump proves that YouTube videos about The Creator that validate your feelings are equivalent to science. Many People Are Saying, 1(2), 10–20. Things I done heard. https://doi.org/I forget

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thanks, I was wondering what a tiny bit of partially digested dinner would taste like.

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

That's what I was going for! Sorry about dinner.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Counter-counterpoint: uh... damnit, I forgot the tooth (already!?).

A statement which somehow makes so much more sense than the rest of 2025 so far.

You might want to banana.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hey, but measles in Texas, and tuberculosis in Missouri, are making comebacks!
Ivermectin! RFKjr! Bleach!

Learn to ReSeArcH!!

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Aren't those just from the gay space lasers and Jewish hurricanes? I feel like their resistance means we're on the right path.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 months ago

How about 47 TikTok videos?

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 points 10 months ago

"I did my own research"

Oh, you did? You had a lab, and test subjects and ran double blind studies? Is it peer reviewed?

"Oh, no I listened to Joe Rogan"

[–] underwire212@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ideally, yes.

What ends up happening if your research shows new conclusions on the basis of “better science” is that those in power will probably ridicule your new conclusions and findings since it doesn’t align with ‘accepted’ scientific consensus and doctrine. And by ridicule I don’t mean challenging the new theory on the basis of counter data/evidence and reasoning. I mean ad hominem attacks on the researchers themselves. “Well, they graduated from a top 30 university and not MIT, so anything they produce is not worth looking into”. You won’t be funded and the status quo will be allowed to continue without significant challenge.

I used to want to be a researcher when I was younger. My experiences have been wrought with closed-mindedness, arrogance, and lack of critical judgment and objectivity. Maybe my experiences aren’t representative, but hearing from others (at least in my field), I see that this is a systemic and widespread problem within the scientific community as a whole.

How long did it take to convince people the Earth was not at the center of our universe?

[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

something that does count:
a dream about a snake eating it's own butt (cool story btw)

[–] neutronbumblebee@mander.xyz 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Indeed, and in addition if your religion is not supported by the facts it's time to revise its assumptions. Religion can deal with new evidence, it's just rather slow compared to say human lifetimes. I suspect thats because the basis of many faiths reasoning is built on philosophy, Christianity in particular. Which is a kind of precursor to experimental science where progress is slow or even circular.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Religion can deal with new evidence

Of course it can, all fiction can be easily retconned.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

All I gotta say is technology has finally made us dumber

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

While they don't refute it, enough of those do prevent better science from happening though, especially when it's needed.

[–] Old_Yharnam@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I need a tshirt of this

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.

In other words, well, science.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 97xBang@feddit.online 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Isn't a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it's still le sahyênçe.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Sorry, I don't understand.

[–] 97xBang@feddit.online 4 points 10 months ago

Yeah, I'm being silly.

Isn't a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it's still science.

FTFM

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago

Not to my mind, science requires a testable hypothesis and evidence. I would argue that merely refuting someone else's hypothesis without providing a new one doesn't meet the bar of doing science.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nulluser@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago
  • Your favorite celebrity
[–] MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dude, have you looked out your window? Its so obvious the qorld is flat... /s

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›