3 points

Both wrong.

It’s just a process. Find evidence, make theories. Find more evidence, adjust theories or replace them.

People gotta stop injecting their religious beliefs about “the truth” or “socialism” or whatever into science. These are just your personal beliefs and science don’t give a shit about any of that.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

See: Lysenkoism

Though being aware of the biases involved in the literature is always important

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The Big Bang Theory has that silly name because it’s what people trying to discredit it termed it.

There’s bias in everything, but empirical evidence wins out in the end.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Empirical evidence wins out in the end but… it’s not that simple. One name said a lot about this : Thomas Kuhn. Try giving The structure of scientific revolutions a read whenever you can. It’s old and there are more contemporary work, but Kuhn is still a reference in epistemology.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Scientific method is the best tool we have to achieve “pure objectivity and truth”, but it’s not perfect. The primary point of failure being application of it by extremely subjective creatures.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

I know right? It baffles me how transphobes use “science” to be transphobic, like Sir/Ma’am, where in the chromosomes is it written “woman” or “man” or any of the stereotypes attached to those words. We made that shit up, we looked at what was there and then added meaning to it that wasn’t there. We interpreted the data according to our current age’s biases. Sure those wiggly things usually determine the parts you’re born with, but where in those parts is it written that women are soft and belong in the kitchen?

If you were to do some unethical science you can even add/block hormones that go into the fetus during its development for it to develop bits that it wouldn’t normally. Hell, you can do that well after birth and new features will develop because human bodies are rather “customisable”

sorry rant over, I don’t often get to talk about this from this perspective because getting into the intricacies of subjectivity of science in regards to how human beings and our languages are flawed is a bit too advanced for the average bigot

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Or if you want a shorter version, “circle the part of the chromosome where it says men hold the door open for women”. There are obviously differences between what’s written in genes and the billion little social rules surrounding gender. It makes sense to have different terms to differentiate biology from social rules, and “sex” and “gender” can do that just fine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

A person’s sex is science, but their gender is a social construct. I sometimes wonder if trans people would even be a thing if there were no socially defined gender roles (or assumed gendered language) and people could just be who they are. I suspect there would not be as there wouldn’t be anything to be “trans” from.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

A person’s sex is science, but their gender is a social construct.

Even sex is not the black and white dichotomy most people make it out to be. The way we define and dictate someone’s sex isn’t reproducible for everyone. The intersex population is larger than what most people assume, and can vary in ways that defy the way we normally evaluate sex. It can range from someone having different chromosomal pairings, to having a varied arrangement of secondary sexual organs.

Anyone saying that someone’s sex is scientifically dependent on “x” is either ignorant, or academically dishonest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Very ironic comment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

how so?

edit: if you mean the “Sir/Ma’am” bit I belive it is a valid assumption to make that a transphobe wouldn’t consider other options lmao

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Don’t forget all the politics involved in getting funds for your research. Fun times!

permalink
report
reply
0 points
*

What’s the point in memes where it’s putting something that’s just uncontroversially true and not really that complex of an idea next to a twink wojack

Edit: just read the comments smh. My bad OP you’re entirely in the right for this, apparently the basic idea that the dominant ideology reproduces itself is too complicated for people to get, also someone calling you a tankie for this lol

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Yeah, but homeopathy is still bullshit.

I know that’s not necessarily the intention of this meme but it’s way too common in woo circles.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

considering the political skew on lemmy i think this is more an admonition of capitalism than of science

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Even so, academics is such a niche and marginal problem compared to, like, anything else capitalism fucks up.

Scientists are still doing good things all the time under capitalism. Environmental sciences criticize problems that capitalists are loath to address all the time, but also apparently capitalism funded their research for a century.

This post is just more populist tanky agitprop to make dumb people angry and distrust institutions and science whenever it tells them something they don’t like.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science Memes

!science_memes@mander.xyz

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.2K

    Posts

  • 25K

    Comments