this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2025
975 points (99.6% liked)

Science Memes

17881 readers
3345 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 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 58008@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The "do your own research" people need to have it explained to them that even experts in their respective fields aren't automatically capable of parsing scientific literature. A family doctor with 50 years experience who prescribes antidepressants every day will have no deep understanding of what any particular scientific peer reviewed study on SSRIs is telling them. They need a grounding in statistics more than anything else, which most people just don't have. So the idea that a non-educated, non-scientist can read peer reviewed studies and come away from them with some sort of understanding of the issue is the thing that needs to be highlighted, preferably in high school science class (earlier, frankly). A willingness to slog through scientific papers in pursuit of deeper knowledge is admirable, but is dangerously misguided without proper training. I don't even mean training in the specific science, but just in how to speak the language of peer reviewed studies more generally. It's very much its own discipline.

I want someone to ask Joe Rogan what 'regression to the mean' means. I want someone to ask him what a 'standard deviation' is and how to apply the concept. I don't want to know what papers he's read, because you could read 50 true scientific papers a day on one topic and still have no idea what the current scientific consensus is on said topic, absent the requisite training. You'll almost certainly come away from it with a very wrong but very confident belief. Dunning-Kruger on steroids.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 38 minutes ago

The 'research' that the "do your own research" people are referring to isn't peer reviewed scientific literature.

It's other fools' social media rantings.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

On a related note having 6 different classes a day 8 hours total times 5 days a week made it impossible to learn properly.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago

There are something like 10 million students attending Christian school and the like, and another 5 million or so being home schooled.

They don't really believe in the scientific method and critical thinking, in general. At least in my experience as a student of a Christian school. I had no idea.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nil@piefed.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

"those people" are drinking piss, literary

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I took the minimum amount of science classes in highschool. Lack of science education is less of a problem than teaching you how to sort through bullshit and analytical thinking. I basically think that our school system needs to stop focusing so hard on teaching things from the textbooks in an ever-changing world that's cherry picked from an endless wealth of knowledge and focus more on learning how to be skeptical and check various sources and such. In school it seemed like research was always just a backseat to the goal, instead of the goal itself.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Ngl I like learning from textbooks now that I am out of highschool. I learn faster too.

And weirdest part is that I still can't study through my highschool textbooks.

I am geniuenly wondering if they were just simply terrible at picking good textbooks and overall using them to teach.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 76 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 26 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Real. Curiosity is such a desirable trait in folks.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 35 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] titter@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago
[–] iatenine@piefed.social 35 points 12 hours ago

I found by high school the kids who said that (that hadn't dropped out) moved onto a different argument by that age

Honestly, I know it ruins the joke, but I don't think there's as much overlap between the top and bottom groups as one may suspect

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

My highschool chemistry teacher almost got kicked out of her university for trying to pipette hydrochloric acid with her mouth. That's who I want teaching chemistry, the crazy woman who knows what it means to fuck up, bad. Not some honor roll, life plan having baby bitch.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 37 minutes ago

One of my high school's two chemistry teachers was missing a hand... due to an (undisclosed) chemistry incident.

[–] gravitas@pie.gravitywell.xyz 7 points 9 hours ago

I always found science and history interesting even though i hated school.

Maths though, i always resented "you wont always have a calculator" … but now as im older i imagine kids today having a similar idea about "AI" and i can see that not ending well for anyone. 

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 22 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

If we want children to learn these things, we should teach them these things directly, instead of relying on science classes. I'm not saying we should get rid of science classes, but the people who are saying these stupid things did actually take science classes in school.

We desperately need to teach classes that are specific. I learned a lot about problem solving from math classes, but I was shocked when I tutored other kids, and they only learned the math, but had no idea how to approach problems. And I don't mean just word problems, but literally even if you just give them multiple equations and variables.

My tutoring often went like this: "I can't solve this!" "What information to they give you? What answer do they want? What can you do with the stuff that they've given you to get the answer?" And then they get the answer. Then repeat. Literally no math involved in the tutoring for math class.

So, we need required classes, early, like in elementary school, that specifically teach problem solving, critical thinking, how to detect misinformation, and what I'll call empathy. By "empathy", I mean the ability to imagine yourself in another person's shoes so that you can predict why they're doing what they're doing. It's essential for detecting misinformation because you need to trust somebody at some point, so you need to understand how to tell who is more likely to be trustworthy. I also think we should teach children meditation techniques.

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 28 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

So, we need required classes, early, like in elementary school, that specifically teach problem solving, critical thinking, how to detect misinformation, and what I’ll call empathy.

Good luck. The 2012 Texas GOP platform specifically opposed the teaching of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, the entire GOP feels the same way to this date. Also, empathy is now considered a weakness or moral failing in those circles.

Face it. The federal government and the state governments of a large fraction of the states are diametrically opposed to our desires.

Don't get me wrong. I think you're correct about what our goals should be. But calling it an uphill battle to achieve them would be an understatement of epic proportions.

Edit: 2012, not 2021

[–] Luxyr@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 11 hours ago

It is very much intentional in a lot of places to keep the status quo.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

I don't agree with this. The stuff written by, for example, the "vaccines cause autism" people can sound as sophisticated and authoritative as any textbook. A high-school education isn't going to help someone judge it according to its merits. Thus the problem is a collapse of trust in authority rather than a lack of basic knowledge, because ultimately an ordinary person can only decide to trust the scientific consensus without meaningfully verifying it.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 27 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

But understanding how science works is key to having trust in it. If you lack that understanding you may just think it's a bunch of stuck up eggheads who pick whatever truth is convenient to them.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

But both sides sound as if they have done real science, so a basic understanding of how science is done won't be enough to tell them apart. You can get anti-vaccine books written in an academic tone with citations. They go through the appearance of presenting evidence. The only difference between the two sides that is visible to an ordinary member of the public is that one side represents "the establishment" and the other side doesn't.

Even professional scientists have to have a lot of trust in the institutions of science - if I read a paper then unless there is something egregiously wrong, I rely on the journal and the scientific community to check that the authors did what they claimed to do and that they got the results they claim to have.

[–] discostjohn@programming.dev 2 points 3 hours ago

I think you're right, to some extent, but I think a slightly more than basic understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, and perhaps most importantly, statistics, helps you cut through a lot of the bullshit extremely easily

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 8 points 11 hours ago

It really depends how science is taught: whether they're tought to memorise a bunch of facts and formulas, or actually use reasoning...

[–] JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 hours ago

People like this argument, because they can then hate autistics. They could say we are inherently broken and need to be "fixed" or genocided.

At this point, I only respect people who were discriminated/abused/mistreated in their childhood.