this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024

553 points (79.9% liked)

Science Memes

10815 readers

3330 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.

Research Committee

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

553

... (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

177 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 43 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

This statement is ~~on the verge of being~~ a strawman argument. The first compares science to other systems of knowledge, while the second criticizes the subjects of scientific study under a capitalist influence.

These two statements do not refer to the same thing in context.

Edit: clarity

[+] [email protected] -6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I would beg to differ. There is a THOU MUST PUBLISH OR STARVE ethos in modern research, which is directly incentivized on both sides by capitalism -- researchers want to eat and pay rent and institutions want to be fancy so rich people bribe them to let their kids in. This has led to it becoming common place to do a study and THEN form your hypothesis, which is just not science. That's how you get so many "chocolate cures ass cancer!" headlines. Somone is researching if chocolate blocks a protein you never heard of, it doesn't, but through the magic of random sampling, this set of subjects had a low rate of cancer in five years so, we're publishing that even though that's NOT how science works. You're identifying quirks of sample sets, not challenging hypotheses because of the direct intervention of capitalist incentives.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Now you’re just arguing the strawman

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's almost like they didn't get your point

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

“Almost”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Why is it a strawman? Are you saying that doesn't happen? I've read a fair number of respectable sources saying it does. If not, where do the "study shows coffee causes cancer" and "study shows coffee cures cancer" articles come from? Are you just being contrarian, because Science™ is now a blue MAGA v original flavor MAGA political thing? What's the angle here?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Bro, what point are you actually arguing against? The person you replied to never made a point about research bureaucracy.

Google ignoratio elenchi

[+] [email protected] -8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm not trying to take a side in some weird internet flat earther thing, I'm just saying like Thomas Kuhn has a point in Structure of Scientific Revolutions... I'm not a Lacannian, but based on the one Slavoj Zizek talk I saw in grad school about his triad of reality, my understanding is he also had pretty good points about the inherent unreliability of second order reality, which is inherently run by some manner of corruptible authority, that addresses the same concern that research can be institutionally tainted and biased by the structures within which they exist... Capitalism is provably directly producing unscientific research at research institutions, especially in health contexts that have the most direct impact on people materially... Just look at the Perdue Oxycontin studies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism is provably directly producing unscientific research at research institutions,

So you agree the second statement is not really about science.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The fact that you are this thorny about besmirching the name of Science in vain is sooooo telling.

Yes, I agree, it is not Science as per The Enlightenment, what I as a pedant, call inductive reasoning, but when Neil goes out there telling you to wear a mask, is that backed by Science™, unless he's taking Science's name in vain (he was)? Science is inductively reasoned truth to what extent it is truth, and the very people who want to lecture us about Science™ want to throw things at the wall intuitively like shamen to calm us, and dictate what we should know for fear of our behavior, like an unordained Sangha using effective means to guide children

Edit disclaimer: I'm in no way antivax, I had em all you should too, and especially kids, but those are legit 95% certainty PROPER science as per claimed efficacy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I very clearly explained the strawman.

Just because I pointed out that your argument is flawed doesn’t make me Maga or some kind of Trump supporter. It just means you made a bad argument.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

In what regard? Is this trolling? I am legitimately confused, which leads me to think you're one of the abusive Cheney Dems on this platform, but I am open to other interpretations if you provide me room for that...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

I have no horse in this race, topically speaking, but your continual return to name-calling ("Cheney Dems", "Blue MAGA") belies your attempt to come across as a good-faith participant in this discussion. There are people out there that think differently than you, and there always will be. Using pejoratives, reducing people you don't know to mere "thought-terminating cliches", is not conducive to civil discussion or persuasive dialectics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If you’re going to ignore everything, I’ve already said, I see no reason to continue. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to enable that compulsion.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I am legit confused about this outrage, ELI5, please... I am legit not arguing in bad faith and am seriously confused, but I did not google your thing because I am lazy and don't care if this meme is some cancelled thing I was arguing the underlying point that as per Kuhn, Scientific stuff is within a cultural/economic/geographical, yada yada like all human activity

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

You coming history indicates otherwise