this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
691 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

16693 readers
2562 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 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dingus@lemmy.world 49 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Wait...you mean I was supposed to actually read the articles I cited????

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 31 points 2 years ago

If YouTube counts 10% as a view, then I can read the discussion by itself and consider myself edumacated.

[–] Drinvictus@discuss.tchncs.de 47 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's why the good lord gave us abstracts

[–] Bristle1744@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago

And explicitly told us to copy/paste stuff until everybody has a copy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_the_multitude

[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago

It’s easy to read articles when you skip the middle parts with all the big words.

[–] tacotroubles@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Abstracts are good enough for me

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Abstract+conclusions is the sweet spot.

This makes me think that given some particular article, the only people that would ever read it in its entirety are its authors and (maybe) a couple reviewers.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My preferred reading order: Abstract > conclusion > results > discussion / analysis > methods > background > introduction

[–] DharmaCurious@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago

This is the way. This is the way of light and goodness.

[–] THE_ANTIHERO@lemmy.today 12 points 2 years ago

Huh then i am the baddest boy alive .

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 6 points 2 years ago

Anyone who fully reads every article they cite is simply bad at time management.

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My sister cites articles she hasn't even read.

She once tried to tell me that the moon only had 16 shades of color (can't remember the exact number). I told her that couldn't be true because there's an infinite amount of points between each shade since color is a spectrum, so she showed me an article with the headline "the 16 shades of the moon"... We argued for a few minutes and then I read the first paragraph, and it said something like "this guy took 16 photos of the moon's different hues". The article she was basing her claim off of didn't even claim what she thought it did lol.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

Sounds like she was referring to 16 bit

[–] alp@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago

Real mrn only read titles.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You monster!