this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025

1247 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

12112 readers

2324 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]

1247

What Refutes Science... (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago by ekZepp to c/[email protected]

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] JeeBaiChow 3 points 4 days ago

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

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

What you seem to be forgetting is that somebody would have to pay for that science ... in that sense, "control over finance" does , in reality, refute science.

[–] Old_Yharnam 2 points 4 days ago

I need a tshirt of this

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (10 children)

Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.

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

Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little

See for example low carb nutrition

load more comments (9 replies)

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

And your greasy greasy granny

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

Foucalt would probably be opinionated on this.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Absolutely!! Unless of course we are talking about "burdening" certain women (or certain men) with the inconvenience of giving birth to another person.

In this case, science has absolutely no place in the conversation!! I don't care when life starts!! No scientist should be allowed to weigh in on whether or not abortion is murder!!!!!

Following this logic, someone who kills a pregnant mother shouldn't be held liable for the murder of 2 people! And fathers who do not want to be fathers but are being forced into the situation should not be held liable for caring for a bundle of cells that they didn't want!

All of these double standards are tiring and gross!!

[–] AeonFelis 1 points 3 days ago

I don't know whether or not this is sarcasm, and frankly - it doesn't matter. Science provides the facts - it does not provide values. You need to combine facts with values in order to come up with an ethical verdict.

If the resulting verdict is not what you wanted, you can always rethink your values. This is essentially what philosophers have done for millennia. It does mean you'll need to defend your new values, of course, but you don't have to stick with old values when it turns out they have bad implications.

What you don't get to do, is decide to ignore or twist the facts. The facts don't change just because they're inconvenient. If you lie in order to get the ethical verdict you desire, then you are tautologically in the wrong.

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

@Awesomo85 @ekZepp An fœtus in its very advanced phase can be considered a baby, for example. Getting out of the mother isn't what makes it a life to be protected. At least, a fœtus old enough to sustain life out of its mother on its own should be considered as such. #opinion

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

N@zi published multiple scientific researches to justify their doings.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments