this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
543 points (79.7% liked)

Science Memes

10905 readers
2100 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
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
543
... (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 weeks ago by FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
169 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Antiproton@programming.dev 28 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Science doesn't change just because some groups try to use it to forward an agenda.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

ignoring the other examples you've been given: it absolutely does even when it goes well. The scientific method is literally based on "other people must change and refine this, one person's work is not immutable nor should be taken as gospel"

Also what science is has changed. Science used to be natural philosophy and thus was combined with other non-scientific (to us) disciplines. Social sciences have only been around 200 years tops.

Some would debate that applied mathematics is science, others would say all sociology isn't science.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd argue the scientific method does not have to include multiple people at all. All it is, is the process of coming up with a hypothesis, designing an experiment to check that hypothesis, and then repeating while trying to control for external factors (like your own personal bias). You can absolutely do science on your own.

The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science. You can come up with better hypotheses by reviewing other people's science, but that doesn't mean when a flat earther ignores all current consensus and does their own tests that it isn't still science.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd counter argue that a test that is not communicated, reported, described or otherwise transmitted to another party is identical to it not happening, therefore one needs to tell "someone" (even if that is a private journal), and while in theory falsifability is possible solo, it increases the problem of induction, and science is, in essence, a language: a description of phenomena not the phenomena itself.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 1 week ago

I'd agree for the result to be useful to society, the science should be published. But science can still be useful to an individual without sharing. I use the scientific method regularly in my daily life for mundane things, and often it's just not worth the time to communicate to others because the situation is unique to me. I write it down for myself later, which doesn't make the science any less valid.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What it is vs how it's (ab)used

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Or "real science" versus "imaginary science"

Bonus round : "real science has never been tried"

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

One more to fill the bingo card

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No True Scotsman argument sort of.

Now, I'm not saying we ignore science or throw it out, but there are flaws.

[–] Chuymatt@beehaw.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

Is it made by humans? Yah, there are flaws.