this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
650 points (97.0% liked)

Science Memes

10833 readers
2683 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.


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
[–] [email protected] 103 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Jealousy is just envious because it didn't make it into the Seven Deadly Sins.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Envy is the emotion behind coveting.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Covetousness is the primary motivation behind adultery.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The word theory has become (or at best is becoming) a clusterfuck of whatever, much like the word literally.

And we don't even have (normal/easy/exact) replacements for those words.
Those words were already the scientific terms for nerds. But normies normied them into normedom, literally theorised into a fuck.

(Also unfortunately Im a normie, but that doesn't mean I can't bitch about it)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I like the word "model", I think it's a better fit even. We're modeling reality. Some models turn out to be shit, while others are well tested giving confidence that they mimic reality well.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

But isn't model used differently in different disciplines?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

~~Some~~ Most models turn out to be shit

Ftfy

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

All models are shit. Some of them are useful tho

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Every model is wrong. Some are useful.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

"But that's just a hypothesis...a GAME hypothesis."

...I'd sub to that channel

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

That entire universe of channels is more accurately described as "whatever" hypothesis.

I kinda wonder how they're doing with the new hosts. Not enough to check, but it's more than 0.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Read the other day that there actually isn't any official distinction. It's just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Normally, I'm all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like "Evolution is just a theory." I will physically fight people on that, If need be.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Theory meaning "unproven assumption" is one of the definitions in Merriam-Webster so it is not a new definition.

You're just angry word means something you don't want it to mean. Just like the literally-figuratively crowd.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

If you consider gross misuse (i.e. mixing up "theory" and "hypothesis") to be a valid form of etymology (e.g. making new words), I have a question to axe.

(I apologize to linguists' families who now have to clean up bodily fluids and/or arrange a funeral.)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

The aks variant pronunciation of ask is fine. It is part of a dialect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I think anyone who uses the word "literally" to mean anything other than "in a literal sense" is a moron who never actually thinks about what the words coming out of their mouth mean, and I always will.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

People who do not seem to understand that language is different than they wish it to be, are the actual morons. Not only morons, but pampas morons. Language is messy, imprecise, and always in flux. Language is a construct of the collective of its speakers, not you alone, nor anyone else. This is why we have specific lexicons for various industries, and academic fields. Even those are constantly being updated, and revised.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To be perfectly fair, you can't "prove" or "disprove" a theory. You can only discover new evidence that supports the theory or another competing theory. Multiple competing theories can be equally accepted as correct.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

I remember seeing somewhere that the "colloquial" usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it's hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don't have a lot else to stand on.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Evolution is just a theory

And so is gravity, and the concept of colors.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Could you explain the difference to me? 🙏

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In physics we call some results "laws" and some "theories." The difference has absolutely nothing to do with our certainty in the validity of the results.

Newton's Laws of motion are called that because they can be written as concise mathematical equations, and allof the content is there. Einstein's Theory of special relativity is just as valid, and even contains Newton's Laws as a special case, but the content of the theory can't be written in simple, concise equations. There are several equations included in special relativity, but they do not represent the entire content. For example, the most important statement of the theory cannot be written in equation form at all: "The measured speed of light in a vacuum will be the same for all observers in inertial reference frames, regardless of the relative speed of their reference frame."

Darwin's Theory of Evolution likewise cannot be written in concise statements (mathematical or otherwise), but our certainty in its validity is no less than in Newton's Laws.

Another important subtlety: I was careful to say that we are certain of the validity. People who don't know better are fond of saying that Newton's Laws are wrong. This is a fallacy. Scientific laws and theories can only be valid or not, they can never be true.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (13 children)

A law describes what happens, a theory explains why. The law of gravity says that if you drop an item, it will fall to the ground. The theory of relativity explains that the "fall" occurs due to the curvature of space time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was referring to the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Theorem would also be interesting to add to the mix.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Descriptive linguists unite! Words evolve and that's okay. Really science should pivot away and start calling more proven theories a different word if they're upset about the confusion.

The etymology of the word theory comes from a word with a meaning closer to "to look at or speculate" so even in that sense science kind of hijacked a word that was further from the modern scientific understanding of the word "theory" and descriptively transformed it themselves for use in their community. And that's okay too.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've ranted about this so much to people close to me. Scientific community just needs to adopt a new word like you say, theory is a lost battle

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I accept it in colloquial discourse. I'm not happy about it, and I will smartass at everyone who isn't asking, but I accept that I'm probably fighting a losing battle. But in science, it's absolutely non-negotiable for words to mean what they mean, and not their own opposite.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Tell that to conventional current vs electron flow. Science is ever updating with new information and the words we use to describe it will change over time as well, but I get what you mean. Prescriptive linguistics especially in formal settings like scientific writing is helpful for clear communication.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Various fields have to adapt their terms all the time. For example, "idiot", "moron", and "mental retardation" were all official medical terms. Then they got used as an insult by the population at large, and got so bad that the medical field had to abandon them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Counterpoint:

The language of science is specific because it is beneficial to have standards that allow explicit specificity. Scientific linguistics evolve differently from the way colloquial linguistics evolves due to different motivations and this difference is okay.

The real problem isn't that scientific language is too strict but that we gatekeep scientific participation in every form, preventing most people from participating in such a way that scientific communication is not confusing. This is in addition to most scientific publications being unnecessarily written in inaccessible language. Specificity is helpful, but the excessive use of jargon and buzz-words to make yourself sound smarter through obtuse language is unhelpful for everyone involved. When jargon cannot be avoided, define it. If you cannot define it, reference a definition.

Clarity and accessibility in all scientific communication is the key to understanding.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

While theory and hypothesis are not the same if you are talking about science, in general everyday use theory is used as a synonym.

In wiktionary: 5. A hypothesis or conjecture. [from 18th c.]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

But I'm a wannabe scientist, don't come here with your colloquial language explanations

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

When someone uses “hesitant”

When they mean “reluctant”

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I suggest we use new words.

Hypothesis - the great pondering
Theory - mystical workings of the orb

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is my biggest pet peeve and I will die on this hill.

Yes, I drive my family nuts.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Yes, they are the Deez family, and yes they have nuts. Enough doxing.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

How about when they say "a phenomena"?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Nobody in the history of humanity has been asked how pedantic they are.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

How pedantic are you?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Me when people treat theory as if its concrete fact that they themselves penned and proved.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

And then say "it's just a theory" to completely dismiss something they don't like.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is a personal attack.

Edit: who's downvoting jokes in this community? 😂

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

When some says nukeuller

load more comments
view more: next ›