this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
1178 points (97.7% liked)

Science Memes

11399 readers
1267 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 86 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right plant has had a rough life

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You ever just have to sneeze but can’t?

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I Have No Mouth and I Must Sneeze.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Closing your mouth or nose during a sneeze increases the pressure in the airways five to 20 times more than a normal sneeze. With no escape, this pressure has to be transmitted elsewhere and that can damage your eyes, ears or blood vessels. Though the risk is low, brain aneurysm, ruptured throat and collapsed lung have been reported.

https://www.sciencealert.com/you-can-stop-a-sneeze-but-heres-why-you-never-should

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 9 months ago

I've escaped death numerous times it seems. I would say I've stared death in the eyes, but you can't do that when you sneeze.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 3 points 9 months ago

Oh shit. My pollen allergy in spring is a death trap.

[–] Hazmatastic@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

Looks like they put off the science fair project for too long and had to throw this little number together the weekend before. Been there, I still remember mine: what genre of music will cats like? Hypothesis: classical. Result: hard rock. Sampled 4 cats over 5 genres, took an hour. Methodology was crap. Sample size was crap. It was a non-experiment that scraped a "you tried" grade

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 53 points 9 months ago (3 children)

There should be more value placed in publishing things that didn't work as hypothesized. That way scientists in the future can know if a particular approach just doesn't work.

Something like this, but completely normalized in the scientific world, where it's ok to publish attempts, whether they succeed or not.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

yea unfortunately publishing science (in certain levels) unfortunately now involves %50 razmatazz, %30 having some well established coauthor and %20 over selling. It has turned into a weird ecosystem that feeds on resource (jobs) scarcity in academia and makes insane profits for publishers.

Not surprised it attracted all kinds of vultures that feed on the scraps (predatory publishers). It is really smelling decay and puss from a mile away.

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My PhD is a proof my hypothesis is wrong. It was a depressing time 😅

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago

I had a null result for my MSc thesis. My supervisor lost interest immediately, and my funding went away. No interest in publishing a failure on his side, because the premise was flawed and he provided the premise. I dropped out and went to industry rather than be student poor with no funding.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 41 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The thing that blew my mind most based on what I thought would happen when put to the test, was that elephants really are frightened of mice. I would have swore that was just a dumb cartoon trope and IRL the elephant wouldn't even give a shit.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure that was in the 'yes, but also no' category. IIRC, they don't see very well and small fast things on the ground spook them, probably because snakes. Pick a mouse up and bring it up high enough for the elephant to get a good look at it and they're fine with it.

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 5 points 9 months ago

tbf that is also how I feel about mice.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kamenlady@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I always had this with the story of field workers using masks in the back of their heads, in order to deter tigers from attacking from behind. I just couldn't imagine the tiger falling for it.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A lot of animals have bright spots in the back of their heads that kinda look like eyes, to deter predators. Actually, I believe tigers themselves have fake eyes on the back of their ears

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Actually, I believe tigers themselves have fake eyes on the back of their ears

Then it's even more embarrassing that they fell for the masked workers ;-)

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hey they can't see the fake eyes on the back of their ears!

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Reminds me of plants that have evolved to look like animals

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thelasttoot@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Have you never watched mythbusters? Are we at a point in time where the Mythbusters are ancient history and not simply common knowledge? OMG what year is it? How old am I?

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I literally am referencing mythbusters. 🤨

[–] thelasttoot@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

I don't know how to correct my mistake. But, you're right, I was wrong. Let this be a testament to the truth. Astartes mechanicus Jesus fucking christicius. Amen.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 33 points 9 months ago (2 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 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.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 44 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Continuing the Wikipedia quote for context

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."[25][26][27]

[–] knightly@pawb.social 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm sure all the women rendered dead or permanently infertile by the abortion bans passed since then can appreciate the nuance of Pyle's belief in the separation of church and state. /s

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Honestly, I think it's 100% reasonable, and is basically the same thing Biden says. He says they're Catholic and personally do not believe in abortion, but that he also believes his religious beliefs shouldn't be shoved on Americans and shouldn't be the basis for legislation. I don't have an issue with anyone who feels abortion is wrong, I just take issue if they force that belief on everyone else.

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 7 points 9 months ago

It's not reasonable for him to say "my beliefs are private" and also support an anti abortion rally in public.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He says they're Catholic and personally do not believe in abortion, but that he also believes his religious beliefs shouldn't be shoved on Americans and shouldn't be the basis for legislation.

Then what was he doing at an anti-abortion rally?

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I was talking about Biden. This guy said they voted Democratic. I don't know more than what was in Wikipedia.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.

There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption. Plus you can be against abortion privately without suggesting it be banned altogether.

Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.

Not reallly, the whole notion of anti-abortion politics is that the rights of pregnant people are secondary to the rights of fetuses. It's cruel by definition.

There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption.

Both ends of that "gap" involve an eliminaton of the right to bodily autonomy for anyone that is or might become pregnant.

Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.

It sounds like he wants to distance himself from the slow-rolling clusterf&%k that is the state of abortion rights in this country without distancing himself from his anti-Christian belief that life begins at conception. The Bible itself has a recipe for herbal abortifacients, prescribes their use for cases of infidelity, and suggests no less than three times that life begins at first breath.

[–] DharmaCurious@startrek.website 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Ooh, you don't happen to know a verse for this, do you? I've heard this before and tried to Google it, but my Google fu is lacking and I just end up finding right wing nut job websites.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.

"pro-life" is those policies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 24 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Holy shit

Zoom Cat Lawyer abused his position to harass an ex with federal agents?!??!

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Without knowing who that is, it's a hilarious mental image.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Zoom Cat Lawyer

A phrase that would've made people question your sanity in the year 2012.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

TIL aww Wiki makes their own little ~~markdown~~ wikitext Tweets!

[–] Lucien@hexbear.net 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wish more people would publish their failures. Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.

[–] emptiestplace@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wish more people would publish their failures.

Agree.

Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.

Disproving a hypothesis does not offer "definitive proof" equivalent to proving one correct, as it eliminates only one scenario among potentially infinite others, whereas proving a hypothesis correct directly builds upon our understanding of the world. The value of disproved hypotheses primarily lies in guiding future research rather than providing solid, actionable results.

[–] Lucien@hexbear.net 2 points 9 months ago

Certainly, I don't disagree with that at all. And that's likely part of the reason so few people publish failures, because there's no "reward". All I was saying is there's still value there.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

Often, it's about not proving your idea wrong, but about proving wrong the idea that your idea is wrong.

[–] jeffhykin@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This is why my field (reinforcement learning) is unfortunately not science.

(Can't really publish "hey I tried this algorithm and it didn't work")

[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

...because people don't accept that it's wrong? Or some other reason?

[–] jeffhykin@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I guess I should've clarified; in reforcement learning "I was wrong in numerous ways" almost always translates to "unpublishable, try to not be wrong next time". Nobody cares if a reinforcement learning hypothesis didn't work, its only worth publishing if it worked well.

[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Gotcha.

I thought that was the norm in all academia these days? Can a physicist (or anyone from another field) publish results that didn't go as expected and save future scientists some time?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›