this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
267 points (97.5% liked)

Science Memes

10752 readers
1420 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"requires many barriers to science"

That's a literal word for word quote from the comment I was originally replying to. I didn't exaggerate anything.

Is someone still publishing caliper head measurements in 2023 that you're aware of? No. Just like no one is publishing flat earth "studies" even though some idiot members of the public think that's fun right now. And no one is publishing about the aether. Who is the arbiter of what compromises junk science, if not the scientific community? The founder of SciHub is a communist. Release all the science.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Are you doing a blowhard long winded workaround way of calipers-free-but-still-racist "shitty" science under pious pretenses of it still being scientific enough to get attention?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyin6uipy4

Who is the arbiter of what compromises junk science, if not the scientific community?

Release all the science.

It's clearly a losing battle within that community if you're making excuses for "shitty" science getting attention that it both doesn't deserve and that will actually harm people.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No more than you're suggesting that there are racist astronomy studies being published, even though I could choose to disingenuously represent your position with that statement.

Racist studies need to be refuted. It's not that hard. Restricting access to all science (which I see you now notice is what that other commenter was suggesting) isn't going to magically stop racist studies from being published.

And again, who are you suggesting should be the arbiter?

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And again, who are you suggesting should be the arbiter?

Are you suggesting there should be no arbiter?

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've said exactly what I think. The scientific community is the arbiter, as it is now.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That arbiter is not doing a good job considering the proliferation of antivax, race "science," and climate change denialism, among other things.

Feel as above the fray as you like, but normalizing the mass distribution of junk/shit or otherwise false science under some lofty ideal of "the free marketplace of ideas will select for the correct data" is clearly, demonstratively, and repeatedly not doing that and hasn't in the past either.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have utterly no idea what's even present in scientific publications. Antivax and climate change denialism are not rampant in published science. They're rampant amongst ignorant members of the public. That's not even remotely the fault of science.

And here's a summary of the current state of race science:

"Race does not stand up scientifically, period."

https://www.scribd.com/article/350285350/What-Both-The-Left-And-Right-Get-Wrong-About-Race

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Someone else responded better than I could to what amounts of your wall of arrogance that was toward someone with an opinion and a take so similar to yours that it applies to you as well.

Every single time someone does a report on crime and breaks down data by race you're seeing racist social science in action. The way we do clinical trials. Decisions about what to study, like the impacts of lead, or education, or pharmaceuticals, all of it lies on top of and interpermeates racist superstructure. Recent? Forced hysterectomies. Public statements from researchers that genetics are not politically correct. Mauna Kea. Environmental impact studies in Guam. I mean, it's never ending.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not never ending. We're very critical of the racism and sexism in medical research. And the younger generations of doctors are far more aware of it.

We used to butcher women in radical mastectomy surgeries and we don't do that anymore. We used to do medical experiments on black Americans without telling them and we don't do that anymore. For everything that you can point to as a current problem, I can point to another thing that used to be a problem and now has been corrected.

And still none of that has anything to do with physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, oceanography. You can't just say "racism impacts some sciences therefore we shouldn't do science at all"

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We're very critical of the racism and sexism in medical research.

You're demonstratably actively and overtly ignoring examples given to you, right now, showing just how flawed your claimed "critical" status is of such issues.

And still none of that has anything to do with physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, oceanography.

Yes, you have that ivory tower of yours crammed so high that you're willfully ignoring intersectional issues that do affect the application, interpretation, even the funding and political will to allocate resources to such fields.

For everything that you can point to as a current problem, I can point to another thing that used to be a problem and now has been corrected.

That only demonstrates that correcting the process and actively rejecting bad/false science requires ongoing vigilance, not smug and arrogant dismissal of concerns.

therefore we shouldn't do science at all

No one said that and you're willfully ignorant at this point.