Science Memes

11437 readers

1399 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

!spiders@lemmy.world

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

655

BACK IT UP (mander.xyz)

submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

247 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://academictorrents.com/

☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dolle@feddit.dk 22 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Yes, but it shouldn't be legalized for the wrong reasons. We used to justify legalization using arguments about personal freedom for recreational use and pushing for more rigorous research into the therapeutic use cases. Now its popularity in the population is just used to push a pseudo-scientific and anti-science agenda.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Yes, but it shouldn’t be legalized for the wrong reasons.

This is kind of an interesting thought, imo. If one agrees with the resultant policy, does the rationale used to get there matter? Perhaps it does in principle, but I wonder if it matters in practice. The end result is the same.

[–] Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy. Which would mean that they wouldn't agree with the policy beyond the legalization itself.

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

I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy.

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

[–] Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

If the brain worms tell RFK Jr. That psychedelics are actually a cancer cure, then legislation could be put forth to legalize psychedelics. But rather than allowing recreational use, or using them for a medical purpose based on scientific fact such as use in conjunction with therapy to treat depression, it could be legalized as prescribed medication for cancer. This has the drawbacks of not allowing access to people that could actually benefit from it, as well as now being used as a snake oil cure for something completely unrelated that will prevent people from getting other more effective treatment.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn't be favorable for all parties.

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It does not matter morally, but does rhetorically and politically. The result of neglecting the latter is your rhetoric can be abused, see OP

[–] dolle@feddit.dk 2 points 4 weeks ago

If the end result is that psychedelics get used as an excuse to take power away from the FDA, then everybody's safety gets compromised in all areas of healthcare.

[–] fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

I mean there's already quite some research with psychedelics showing positive results. Expecting RFK to act on facts and science is wishful thinking. We can just be thankful that his twisted mind aligns with science at least in this position.