this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
1325 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

10501 readers
2153 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.


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
 
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bobby_hill 167 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This legitimately is science, though. A scientist is characterized by their willingness to change their mind when confronted with new evidence. It's so contrary to the normal human response that we named it.

[–] garyyo 43 points 1 year ago

Thats how its supposed to work and in practice it kinda does, but the people with the money want positive results and the people doing the work have to do what they can to stay alive and relevant enough to actually do the work. Which means that while most scientists are willing to change their minds about something once they have sufficient evidence, gathering that evidence can be difficult when no one is willing to pay for it. Hard to change minds when you can't get the evidence to show some preconceived notion was wrong.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I once had a very special, very young colleague, who would always question everything, but was never willing to change his own mind. And of course, he believed the Bible was 100% verbatim correct and scientists were lying.

Well, one day he exclaimed, "Scientists don't know everything for certain either!".
So, I responded, "Yeah...? They don't claim to...?".

And that left him absolutely confused. I don't know how much propaganda his parents fed him, but I guess, at the very least he never considered that a possibility.

So, I told him that it's not called a "scientific theory" for nothing. And that literally everything in science will be abolished, if you can disprove it.

After that quick shock, he was already back to not wanting to believe anything that sounded logical, but his last response was something along the lines of "That doesn't make any sense. How can you live by something and not know for certain that it's correct?".

Which, like, I get it. It's scary to not have certain answers. But it makes no sense to just pick one answer and decide that this one is certain.
But yeah, that is the mindset he grew up in.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

It takes a lot of those moments to experience a paradigm shift. Unfortunately a person usually won't encounter enough of them to see clearly unless they're actively searching for answers. That's why churches discourage asking a lot of questions, or reading secular material. When my walls started crumbling it was a legitimately uncomfortable experience. Realizing that you've been living by a bunch of preconceptions that aren't universal truths, and understanding for the first time how another group perceives something differently than your entire core group does, is really confusing and difficult. Most people get scared when they hit that point and retreat back to their core belief system. It's very uncomfortable to keep pushing through for answers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I belive religions and gods came from people not wanting to admit they "don't know" certain things. They ask for stuff like how can you prove that god does not exist while there is no evidence that god exist either. Its like saying "show me the evidence that thing with no evidence does not exist"

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

Honestly, I don't even think, it was necessarily that someone didn't want to admit missing knowledge.

In my experience, us humans still love our false gods.
For example, how was the universe created? Well, there was the Big Bang, end of story. Most people just accept a big explosion as an explanation.

In reality, not only is the Big Bang not actually an explosion (nor finished), things happened before it, too. And we have a hard time seeing what happened before it, so we actually do not know that the universe was created. The theory with the least assumptions would be that it was not created, just spatially a lot smaller.

Of course, religion was itself involved in spreading the theory that the universe was created, but you've still got theoretically intelligent people not questioning how the void just kind of exploded for no reason and suddenly everything existed.

Another absolute classic of modern false gods: AI.
In most contexts, when a computer scientist says "AI", you can mentally replace that with "magic" and it's similarly meaningful. It's basically just a code word for them to not need to explain further.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The theory was there was no time before the big bang and it means there was no "before" at all. But yes its also questionable and we actually don't know what it is. I don't think theoretically intelligent people does not question such things. Thoose people are still trying to find evidence to prove or disprove existing notions. I think religious people are the ones act like they know it

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I wish somebody had told me beforehand that a degree of enthusiastic acting was necessary to spin my miserable results into a success like the superstars in the department, though.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

"We have successfully disproven the hypothesis!"

vs.

"Yeah, so I did some experiments and it turns out I was wrong."

I personally like the latter, but I guess I'm in the minority.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah Mr. Investor. By blowing up the the lap I have reached the groundbreaking Discovery, that the explosives are indeed explosive! Due to this phenomenal Results I have been able to determine both the danger AND the economic possibilities of explosives! Here are some definetly reliable graphs, that prove how my explosive is super nice and (in Theory) the most powerful explosive ever discovered!

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Lmao have fun publishing that kiddo

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I had such a hard time explaining to my family why I was working on a project for two years, and ends up with nothing publishable...

Everyone can be wrong, solving problems is what my field is looking for (I m not sure if that is fortunate or unfortunate).

[–] LemmysMum 19 points 1 year ago

Which is stupid. Everyone can be wrong because we haven't been wrong enough times to be right. How many people have to be wrong the same way before we benefit from the paths they re-tread?

[–] tdawg 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You didn't spend 2 years failing. You spent 2 years learning

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

Most research is funded by private corporations looking to make their money back then some. Two years of not being right is usually worse for having a sustainable career than just bsing that you're right. Case study: Alzheimer's research.

[–] peopleproblems 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not a doctor, and I'm not a researcher in any field, but I do recall reading plenty of null studies when I had access to the catalogs.

Are publishers only publishing positive stories now?

[–] ZoopZeZoop 12 points 1 year ago

In my field they do publish results without success, but it must either be (a) something seminal in the field or (b) interesting in a notable way. General things aren't going to have the juice to get through the review process. One exception to this is the shotgun method. If you're testing a bunch of different things that get at the same question and they all miss, you might still get published, but that's because it's adjacent to (b).

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices 1 points 1 year ago

It's actually a published problem 😅

[–] Cortell 10 points 1 year ago

Null results are results too 🥲

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Is the creator of these still anti-abortion? It's marred my enjoyment of them since finding out a few years back.

[–] samus12345 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

According to him, he follows Jesus, so presumably so.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well I follow Odin, can I throw a brick at them?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jesus was a carpenter so he might start building a house.

Besides that, in Jewish culture life starts at first breath and the bible literally has a recipe for abortion in it (not a very good one and it's around wildly sexist context but it is there)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

If christians followed their teachings of their god I wouldnt have nearly as much of a problem with them, I doubt theyd build a house with my brick.

[–] Nima 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aww really? I didn't know about that. that's kind of a shame.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In April 2019, a Twitter post by Pyle from 2017 resurfaced regarding the pro-life rally March For Life. According to some reporters, Pyle's tweet expressed support for, or defended, March For Life. The tweet caused many[who?] fans to turn against Strange Planet and its creator, in a controversy described by at least one outlet as an example of the Milkshake Duck phenomenon.

Pyle released a statement shortly afterwards which did not mention abortion, but said that he and his wife "have private beliefs as they pertain to our Christian faith. We believe separation of church and state is crucial to our nation flourishing." He also stated they voted for the Democratic Party, and were "troubled by what the Republican Party has become and [did] not want to be associated with it."

[–] Nima 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope he's changed since then. thank you for sharing.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't agree with his viewpoint, but I do respect the mentioning of "separation of church and state." The way I understood his statement was that he personally doesn't support abortion, but that the government shouldn't regulate abortion based on that.

I might have understood wrong though, feel free to lmk if you read it differently

[–] Nima 7 points 1 year ago

no you're absolutely right. I getcha.

[–] CluckN 6 points 1 year ago

I still can’t believe the dude landed an Apple+ show.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you made a poster out of some of my decisions it would be the ultimate science fair project

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

Post-hoc analysis like: hold my beer

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you haven't seen the animated series on AppleTV or the high seas, check it out. It's very sweet and life-affirming.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You could even say it's "pro life"