Also corporations tie employment of scientists to the number of papers they publish, as well as burying data that is financially harmful.
...
Submitted 1 year ago by FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/6f601c64-1d25-46b6-908e-6e224091d93e.webp
Comments
Etterra@lemmy.world 1 year ago
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 1 year ago
It doesn’t matters what it is, if you use a straeman I will automatically disagree.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 1 year ago
You’re going to hate wojak comics
Draegur@lemm.ee 1 year ago
🔫👨🚀 I always have.
mo_lave@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Why not both?
What’s decided to be worthy of study is subjective. The process to hypothesize, experiment, and conclude what’s being studied is objective.
Katrisia@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Even by itself, the first statement might not be the case. I don’t remember the book that well, but I remember thinking it was a good introduction to this topic. Philosophy of Science: A Very Brief Introduction by Samir Okasha.
underwire212@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Ideally, absolutely. That’s what makes the hallmarks of a great scientist.
In practice, institutionalized science can be just as dogmatic and closed-minded as some of the worst religions.
I have had advisors/coworkers/management straight up ignore certain evidence because it didn’t fit their preconceived views of what the results “should be”. This doesn’t make the process of science objective anymore when people are crafting experiments in ways to fit their views, or cherry picking data that conforms to their views.
And you would be surprised at how often this happens in very high-stakes science industries (people’s lives are at stake). It’s fucking disgusting, and extremely dangerous.
NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 1 year ago
Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.
One cannot really argue that science as practiced is very effective at certain things but it is also extremely far from being objective in practice. Especially the further you stray from simple physical systems.
Also like I never saw someone formulate a hypothesis in any sort of formal sense haha.
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.
I imagine it depends heavily on the field. In some fields there are ideas that one can’t seriously study because they’re considered settled or can’t be studied without doing more harm than any believed good that could be achieved. There are others subject to essentially ideological capture where the barrier to publish is largely determined by how ideologically aligned you are (fields linked to an identity group have a bad habit of being about activism first and accurate observation of reality second).
angrystego@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Probably depends on the field or even the institution. My experience is much more positive.
Juice@midwest.social 1 year ago
Does anybody understand what this meme is trying to say? I feel like its pretty obvious
micka190@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Neil DeGrass Tyson rails femboy doomers from behind while debating science or something idk.
Emmie@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Some kind of commie drivel that’s literally incomprehensible since final debunking in 70s
Juice@midwest.social 1 year ago
So no, no one understands it.
What was the last nail, exactly? I don’t see how swapping out neo-liberal drivel with “scientific Marxist drivel” would be any improvement
Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 year ago
What the fuck are you talking about?
mostdubious@lemmy.world 1 year ago
haha fUnNy mEme - gUeSs We cAn JuSt aBaNdOn SCiEnCe!
Juice@midwest.social 1 year ago
Cuz that’s what this meme is trying to abandon - science
Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is why the last step of science is broad consensus, which has solved literally every single example of bad science in this entire thread. All this means is people should pay more attention to sources.
galanthus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Broad consensus may be the “last step of science” only insofar as if the scientific community accepts a theoretical framework as a complete, perfect, objective truth there will be no more science and no more scientific community, only fools and fanatics.
Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Zementid@feddit.nl 1 year ago
Even if you follow the rules strictly, confirmation bias can kick in… which is basically “always” because you have to start somewhere and will think a certain way.
Based on that argument, why bother? /s
Toes@ani.social 1 year ago
Does anyone remember all the bogus studies that showed smoking was healthy?
uis@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Wrong example. Here better example would be “does anyone remember how underfunded were those studies, that said smoking was not healthy?”
Toes@ani.social 1 year ago
Fair enough, yeah from what I remember big tobacco was funding the former. They even had the surgeon general recommending smoking.
Draconic_NEO@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Let’s also not forget that Scientists are also humans. Humans with their own beliefs and biases which do get transferred into studies. Peer review can help reduce that but since peers are also humans with their own biases, but also common biases shared amongst humans it’s not bulletproof either.
There will always be some level of bias which clouds judgement, or makes you see/think things that aren’t objectively true, sometimes it comes with good intention, others not so much. It’s always there though, and probably always will be. The key to good science is making it as minimal as possible.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
Based
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 year ago
scientists are like gold prospectors dependent on assayers for their continuing in the mine
Antiproton@programming.dev 1 year ago
Science doesn’t change just because some groups try to use it to forward an agenda.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
Is it made by humans? Yah, there are flaws.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
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.
glitchcake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
wooooosh
that’s the point flying over your head
SparrowHawk@feddit.it 1 year ago
But it does. Cigarettes were healthy and climate change didn’t exist 50 years ago
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Leviathan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Neither of those things were backed by science. Confusing convincing lobbying with science is a problem today was it was then.
Antiproton@programming.dev 1 year ago
There was never any science saying “cigarettes are healthy”.
Draconic_NEO@mander.xyz 1 year ago
I mean those things didn’t change, it was just about how research was manipulated by money and human biases.
Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 year ago
What it is vs how it’s (ab)used
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
Or “real science” versus “imaginary science”
Bonus round : “real science has never been tried”
4oreman@lemy.lol 1 year ago
ok, but according to science everyone is worthless
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 year ago
If you catch your friends using Science as a religion, tell them they’re not a skeptic, they’re a cunt.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
Well look here buddy this was proven better than p>0.05 therefore it is scientifically accurate !
SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Am scientist (well, was, before career change), can confirm. Fuck dogmatic scientists, they’re worse than regular dogmatists because they’ve been given many opportunities to know better.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Ah SoleInvictus, he is an average [Insert Career Here], but he was a BRILLIANT Scientist!
Memes aside - (youtu.be/F_DFJ-OXTzQ)
This is such a common problem that it’s lead to the phrase “Science progresses at the march of funerals.”, what with all the people so attached to their pet theories they can’t humor anything that contradicts them…
CyberTailor@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Critical theory, my beloved
praise_idleness@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
[deleted]FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
I’m an anarchist who despises authoritairian tankies.
This is just critical theory, and meta science. Both of which are legitimate fields.
Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
does tankie just mean “critiques capitalism” now?
fern@lemmy.autism.place 1 year ago
This is tankie? It seems just communist.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
After everything that happened in the 20th century to learn from, is there any difference
P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 1 year ago
Source (of drawing)?
Astronauticaldb@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Took like maybe 5 minutes of searching, but the artist is Bro Aniki
P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 1 year ago
Peter… I thought it was just a cute little drawing…
P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 1 year ago
Nice! Thank you!
weker01@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Yes and? Is the premise that capital only chooses bad things to research?
Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
Capital has certain interests. If your research doesn’t produce the results that capital is looking for, you’re unlikely to get more funding. As such, it leaves a bias on what we have research for, which can already skew our perception of reality, and sometimes researchers will even fake their results or select certain data to reach a conclusion that’s in the interest of the capital.
There are mechanisms in place to try to prevent that, namely peer reviews and reproduction of previous studies, so we’ll hopefully get to the truth eventually, but the bias still has a big impact.
WarlockLawyer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Plus publish or perish is real thing
weker01@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Yes this all presupposes that this bias is a bad thing. Not saying that it isn’t mind you
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I dunno about science, but truth is proof. That just infers that science is various forms of proof, and I’m ok with that as it lets our notion of proof evolve as we do ^_^
saltesc@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.
This could be done with any combination of…
“Under capitalism, <random thing> is…”
“Under <random ism>, science is…”They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is irrelevant to what Speaker A, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.
I.e. It’s an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.
Unless, of course, “that’s the joke” and I’m just that dumb.
TriflingToad@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Also statement A isn’t the truth either. It’s a highly exaggerated belief.
“science is good” turns to “science is pure truth and always right”
When actually science can be manipulated because humans are, well, humans. It shouldn’t be taken as always 100% fact.Aceticon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Any process unless specifically adjusted to compensate for it (and the adjustment itself is a distortion of it and has secondary effects) will be affected by the environment it is working in.
So specifically for Capitalism and the practice of Science under it, funding and the societal pressure on everybody including scientists to have more money - as wealth is a status symbol in that environment - are he main pathways via which Capitalism influences the practice of Science.
It’s incredibly Reductionist and even anti-Scientific to start from the axiom that environment does not at all influence the way Science is practiced (hence Capitalism is unrelated to Science) and then just make an entire argument on top of such a deeply flawed assumption
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
I think you’re reading statement B too literally. I’m pretty sure the idea behind it is related to critical theory and is an objection to the idea that rationality is trustworthy and that class conflict should be regarded as a higher truth. In that way statement B is relevant to statement A; it’s an implicit rejection of it.
saltesc@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they’re just not related.
The entire post itself, and your reply, is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to an -ism beyond supporting an idea.
pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Thank you. Something about me was rubbing me the wrong way, but I couldn’t articulate it.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Assuming this meme is Marxist propaganda, it would be quite a self-defeating meme, since Marxism is rooted in materialism which is itself a scientific process. At least according to Marx.
saltesc@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t want to deflate your assumption, but “Science is pure objectivity and truth”.
The assumption you introduced just added another layer on by bringing Marxism into it. And here’s the thing with that fallacy; you may be very right! But, it’s got nothing to do with the original statement anymore. It’s just going down tangents of a tangent that should be explored under their own initiative, not the blanket of “science”.
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 1 year ago
ITT it’s still the 1920s I guess.
Political theory has moved on since those days, you know.
Granted, there are people who quote Marx like he’s a religious figure but those people are wrong and stupid.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Unfortunately that’s not how communism works in practice
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Wow thanks! I’ve seen other instances of this fallacy but never knew its name (nor recognized that it is a common fallacy form).
niktemadur@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And under socialism in the 20th century, science was an institution that only funds research that advances whatever narrative the hermetic powers-that-be decided to push and strengthen their grip on power, their obsession with secretiveness and projecting an image of infallibility.
Take the Soviet Union.
T.D. Lysenko and his crackpot food engineering ideas is one such glaring example. But boy oh boy could he talk a “toe the party line” game and suck up to Stalin.
Or how about how the kremlin rendered nearly one quarter of Kazakhstan uninhabitable due to their relentless nuclear testing. And they nearly did that for all of western Europe with Chernobyl.In the name of workers and science, we shall poison your land. Science for the workers’ paradise, rejoice, comrades!
socsa@piefed.social 1 year ago
Nihilism is fun! Science as a framework for truth seeking, and big S Science are functionally different things. Nobody is making the argument that Science is free from political or economic bias, or even that empiricism is the sole arbiter of truth. Literally just finish reading Kant, I'll wait.
On the other hand, you can look at the world and very plainly see that science... does things. It discovers truth with a far better track record than every other imperfect epistemology. But sure, capitalism bad. Twitter man cringe. And the internet is just like, an opinion, or something.
EleventhHour@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This statement is on the verge of being a strawman argument. One compares science to other systems of knowledge, while the second criticizes the subjects of scientific study.
These two statements do not refer to the same thing in context.
Bookmeat@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Science is the process of getting things a little less wrong.
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Science is a method of empiricism and inductive logic.
crawancon@lemm.ee 1 year ago
science is science. it can be (sometimes necessarily) prioritized via societal influence, culture and monetary means.
socialist countries have different types scientific spend but I don’t see femboys taking things in the ass for them I guess.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
True but people also use this as an excuse to dismiss any research they disagree with which is idiotic.
Most research is legit. It just might not be interpreted correctly, or it might not be the whole picture. But it shouldn’t be ignored because you don’t like it.
People are especially prone to this with Econ research in my experience.
10_0@lemmy.world 1 year ago
OK and? Also source?
FlapJackFlapper@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The fact that capitalism taints everything it touches is not a criticism of the things it touches.
Shark_Ra_Thanos@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
Actually, it is.
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 year ago
No, it isn’t.
Katrisia@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yet, it’s not as simple as “scientists are under capitalists’ interests”, but “the ideologies within capitalism permeate the way we do science”. A common example is how we measure functionality (and therefore pathology itself) in medicine.