Ironically, doing research is the best way to be right. What people want is to feel right without having to think very hard. Feelings don’t really require energy in the same way that thinking does.
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
1183 points (96.9% liked)
Science Memes
11161 readers
1644 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
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
More than just research is needed and that's what many miss. One must be able to reliably evaluate the quality of evidence to sort fact from baloney. Doing so requires critical thinking, the ability to be able to poke holes in theories regardless of whether you like them or not, and the willingness to be wrong and, above all else, the mental flexibility to update your knowledge when proven so. Not everyone is able to do that.
I am used to being wrong a lot so it comes naturally lol.
Plus the methodology. There’s an idea of actively seeking out research contrary to one’s hypothesis, this helps circumvent the confirmation bias of only looking for things that support a hypothesis and ignoring anything contradictory. It can be healthy to find and consider dissenting opinions.
Another fundamental issue is people using different meanings for similar words. Someone with a strong understanding of scientific method will say things like “I believe” or “studies show”, while someone else will say things like “This is” or “we know”. Colloquially the latter is stronger language conveying more confidence, but the former is more likely to be evidence based. “Theory” is used colloquially the way a scientist would use “hypothesis”. People will say “I have a theory”, that’s only a few sentences and doesn’t make any reliable predictions, the put down an actual theory backed by years of supporting evidence and peer review as “just a theory”.
Feelings are SUPER important to humans because they’re a huge efficiency boost. We take everything we’ve ever learned in our lives and crunch it down into a feeling for how the world works. Then we make the vast majority of our decisions by using that “gut feeling”. Can you imagine how ridiculously inefficient it would be to have to analyze every new scenario you come across?
The big problem today is that people lean in too hard on that idea and assume that because their feelings are right most of the time, feelings must be equivalent to truth.
The problem is that the efficiency is achieved through shortcuts and biases. It'd those biases people need to be careful with.
Works fine when you’re a wild animal, not so much when you’re part of a society
In other words, shortcuts and biases really just trade accuracy for speed.
Those many cognitive biases we succumb to may be great for scenarios faced by hominids a hundred thousand years ago or more. But for sussing out truth and evaluating evidence, they're straight caca.
Can you imagine how ridiculously inefficient it would be to have to analyze every new scenario you come across?
I have adhd so I do not need to imagine it.
Can you imagine how ridiculously inefficient it would be to have to analyze every new scenario you come across?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Third option: they've fallen into a pattern recognition fallacy and think it's a number when it's a completely different symbol. This happens a lot more often than most realize and even knowing about it, it can be difficult to go against the human instinct to find patterns that may or may not exist and then fit the data to it.
g
GTFO! Clearly a drawing of a sanitary door hook. This is war!
Someone, somewhere, will misrepresent this to give credence to the "do your own research" crowd.
Which is not to discredit the message. They misrepresent everything.
See, this meme is annoyed at the ramifications of epistemological relativism.
I am extremely annoyed by the superfluous commas.
load more comments
(23 replies)
I really like this take.
の
I’m a little amused that in the comic both viewers are correct relative to their frame of reference. An extremely powerful concept that significantly advanced physics and about which famous people are household names.
I’m a little amused that in the comic both viewers are correct relative to their frame of reference. An extremely powerful concept that significantly advanced physics and about which famous people are household names.
You accidentally made the wrong point, because Einstein's breakthrough of special relativity was that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference frame.
So if two people with different frames of reference are measuring the speed of light differently, at least one of them is objectively wrong.
But if they measure the order of events differently, they may both be correct. That is because light is always perceived as being the same speed regardless of the observer.
And yet, causality is preserved, and there is a clear specific mathematical relationship between the two frames of reference.
So you will measure differently, but as soon as you do the math to account for your different frames of reference, you will again have the same measurements. Of course, we know there is an objective mathematical relationship between the two frames of reference, because the speed of light is constant.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That grammar is shit as hell, too.
“Just because you are right
Does not mean
I am wrong
Except my grammar
Which sucks doodie”
load more comments
(1 replies)
"The building is behind me therefore it's a six"
"But the number should be facing away from the building therefore it's a nine"
Me, an intellectual: "I want egg"
load more comments
(1 replies)
To further this point, there was an incident in early human history where it was debated whether the massive blobs in space where gas giants or galaxy. It went so far, in fact, that a mass of people built a telescope to clearly see the blobs just to prove eachother wrong and find out that both ideas were correct.
I'm aware of the irony of correcting you but I can't help it. Nebulae not gas giants. Gas giants were known to be planets at the time, as they have apparent motion relative to the Stars. Nebulae and galaxies don't have apparent motion relitive to the stars.
What is ruining this world is that people are too lazy to crop their screenshots and make better looking posts with no wasted space. 😊 Just an opinion.
To all native speaker complaining about grammar: please translate the meme into german or french (without using AI)
That's so deep. I'm shooketh.
i see the hiragana "no"
It's the logo for the nearby eyeglasses repair shop!
The irony is the "one of these people is wrong, somebody painted a six or a nine" is overtly false in this situation. Given the message of the original image, the artist spefically draw a symbol that could be interpreted two ways, and therefore (by design) both figures are equally and partially correct.
I don't believe we should abandon all pursuit of truth or objectivity, but the commentor is really making the artists case for them.
The Artist's intent/message is based on a symbol that can be interpreted two ways, yes. But it is a massive oversimplification for the sake of validating opinions that are plainly wrong.
The Artist's point can only be conveyed by creating a situation where there is no context, so neither opinion can be validated. This is inapplicable in any way IRL because there is always context that will validate a specific opinion with facts. The comment just highlights that this situation is contrived and couldn't, or shouldn't, happen in such a way.
It warns of taking Data out of context to suit a specific narrative.
view more: next ›