“science academia is also an industry”
FTFY
Objectivity
Submitted 10 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/0aa6bde3-6133-475b-a74c-87b4c7f56a79.jpeg
Comments
walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz 10 months ago
fossilesque@mander.xyz 10 months ago
It didn’t have to be.
Cube6392@beehaw.org 10 months ago
How do we rewild academia? Like I feel like this sounds like me being a JAQ off, but like, actually. I want academia to be rewilded. I don’t know how to do that. I want to talk to someone about how to do that
fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
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.
nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
considering the political skew on lemmy i think this is more an admonition of capitalism than of science
wick@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Even so, academics is such a niche and marginal problem compared to, like, anything else that 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.
barsoap@lemm.ee 10 months ago
The founder of homeopathy did the first blinded studies, in a time where allopathy was doing bloodletting and their theories about how things presumably affect the body were, well, bullshit, quite often doing more harm than good. Humour theory and everything, even as a systemic view it’s crude AF compared to what Indians and Chinese came up with.
Now, as in currentyear, homeopathy is bullshit because we are way better at blinding and know that homeopathic drugs are no more effective than placebo.
Which just goes on to show that yes, science is a process.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
It’s good to be skeptical of institutions, just don’t go dismissing or accepting science based on ideological/class association, that’s how you get shit like Lysenkoism
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
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.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 months ago
See: Lysenkoism
Though being aware of the biases involved in the literature is always important
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
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.
kilgore_trout@feddit.it 10 months ago
The second sentence of OP should have started with “Scientific research”
SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Man, NGT gets so much bullshit thrown his way. Sure, he’s an annoying shitposter on Twitter, but the vast majority of the time he makes a public discussion with someone he’s either one of or the voice of reason, and that sentence does definitely throw all nuance he has out of the window.
Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I don’t know, even on his own podcast I found him more willing to sound right than be right. Not that he was wrong, just dropping nuance and exceptions for the sake of sounding absolute and axiomatically correct.
His words end up being easy to poke holes in if and only if you know what he’s talking about. Thus I find it hard to accept what he says when I don’t know what he’s talking about.
Paper castles look good, but a short stone wall has a better reputation.
Jarix@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Sorry for my ignorance but what does axiomatically correct mean?
daltotron@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No yeah for real. I’ve never seen him doing anything I would really consider to be annoying, or at least, more annoying than any other science communicator, and he constantly gets shit on for being like, too cocky, but then when you push back I never get any examples of things he’s actually fucked up on, just that he has bad vibes.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 months ago
Well, I can’t imagine why a prominent and professional black man who publicly supported the Covid precautions and vaccines would have been the target of a smear campaign.
UmeU@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If all scientific knowledge were to suddenly disappear and we were to start from square one, it would all reappear exactly like it is. We would rediscover gravity, evolution, the expansion of the universe, etc.
Just because some scientific research is funded by entities with a bias, does not mean that the process of science is corrupted.
Often times the results of the research funded by biased corporations and institutions results in discovery that is contrary to the goal of the entity and so they just stop funding it. Sometimes they actively try to bury the discoveries, however the process of science will ensure that the truth comes to light eventually.
This meme has a poor understanding of science.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
If all scientific knowledge were to suddenly disappear and we were to start from square one, it would all reappear exactly like it is.
Three competing theories of evolution arose, independently, in our world - one from British and European scientists studying the tropics, another from Russian and US scientists studying Siberia and northern North America, and a third by a Japanese scientist studying statistics and genetics. While the current consensus in evolutionary biology is that all three are true (at different timescales), the vast majority of people (and even other scientists) only know the first. This is partly because Darwin got there first, and partly because a lot of powerful people benefit from spreading social Darwinist woo.
Ironically, in a post-apocalyptic world, the powers that be would probably support the symbiotic theory, with Darwinism frowned upon as selfish individualism.
however the process of science will ensure that the truth comes to light eventually.
As Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. Science is probably the best tool we currently have to find the truth (assuming there is a truth), but it is always important to remember that it is produced by humans, funded by interests and (mostly, though this is changing) published by for-profit journals. When reading a paper, always read the conflict of interest and funding details, and hope the authors are being honest.
blackris@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
The process of science is not corrupted but deeply flawed. It is like that, because we as a species are as well. Science is the best method we have to create secured knowledge, but it is far from perfect. Things like predatory journals, lazy to non existing peer reviews in established publications, reports about scientists who are under pressure to create positive results even if their research had none of those etc. show us that .
Capitalism plays a big part in this problem. To plainly reject that is simply naive.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Science isn’t “deeply flawed”, sorry, that’s nonsense. Are there some players here and there that try and abuse the system, of course. These players are then rooted out and exposed, that’s how it works. If someone tries to hurry research, someone else will discover it.
This entire “capitalism is the root of all evil” is nonsense too. At its core, it’s the freedom to trade directly with one another and there is nothing wrong with it. Strong rules need to be in place to control that process ans the lack of that is what causes do many issues, especially in the US.
Just writing on your mobile phone, claiming science is deeply flawed, is just facepalmingly stupid.
UmeU@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The only thing that can correct bad science is good science.
That’s the great thing about the scientific method, as soon as someone presents a flawed hypothesis which is then subjected to scrutiny, good science has the opportunity to shine a light on the mistakes.
The process of science is not deeply flawed. Just because capitalism does indeed incentivize some to stray away from the scientific method does not then make science itself flawed.
You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Capitalism is a big problem, but to say that the scientific method is deeply flawed because of capitalism is not correct.
slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Thank you, agree. But I learned from this thread that the full pic of the femboy is apparently riding a dildo which kinda fits with the masturbatory dialog, and now I’m not sure what it’s trying to say.
UmeU@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Regarding the masturbation and the dildo, well I suppose I have been had.
But I still disagree with that other person.
Science is better thought of as a verb, not a noun. To suggest that science is inherently corrupted by societies is to conflate science the noun with science the verb. Wank wank.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Whoever posted this meme has a poor understanding of science and isnt anything different than religious nut jobs or conspiracy types denying scientific progress
I really dislike the types, because they love using the results of science to proclaim their ignorant view points. If you really dislike science so much, for whatever reason, then reject all that comes from it. All the great food we have? Don’t eat it. Don’t wear modern clothes, go live in a cave wearing the skin of a bear or something.
Arcity@feddit.nl 10 months ago
Too bad you can’t test your theory either. So stop pointing fingers.
ekZepp@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Someone is confusing true science with “scientists says…” bullshit clickbait titles online.
DrBob@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
OP misunderstood Kuhn maybe.
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
This is pretty par for the course when it comes to a lot of edgy internet leftists. They’ve read a few essays on Marxists.org and think they know philosophy.
There’s literally an entire body of philosophical work about the nature of epistemological truth, realism, naturalism, constructivism, and so on. Some subset of that surely intersects with economic philosophy, but the idea that this is a construct unique to capitalism just reeks or “I’m 14 and this is deep.”
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Science is our best attempt to understand pure, objective truth.
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
And more often than not, with careful reading and a little touch of skeptecism, you can pull a lot of worthwhile information out of the noise.
loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Is there a full version of the femboy wojack picture?
felykiosa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
That s the real question here
JustAnotherUser@lemmynsfw.com 10 months ago
cheesymoonshadow@lemmings.world 10 months ago
Reminds me of how some people got a bunch of fake research papers published to prove how flawed the system is. And they would have gotten still more published but the WSJ caught on and they were exposed.
ICastFist@programming.dev 10 months ago
Don’t forget all the politics involved in getting funds for your research. Fun times!
stoy@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
Science is a method of systematically finding out the what, the how, the when and the why of the world.
Science itself has no answers, but has the questions that will lead to the answers that are the most accurate we can manage.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I mean, research funding is a huge problem, but half the problem is that journalists and reporters are largely people who went into English or Communications and stopped taking or learning any science past the high school level and thus don’t actually know how to read papers or report on them.
And reporting that science to people who know the same or less than them so their mistakes and misreporting is never caught or corrected.
Professorozone@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That’s not how I define science.
wafflez@lemmy.world 10 months ago
[deleted]Professorozone@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I meant there definition in graphic from the OP.
RoseTintedGlasses@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
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
fossilesque@mander.xyz 10 months ago
Posted because it generates good conversation.
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
This has nothing to do with capitalism and is literally a primary conflict between modern and postmodern philosophy. Which is incidentally also largely resolved by emerging meta modern traditions. MLs are definitely good at philosophy though, at least if you ask them.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Welcome to the internet in 2024, where “the systems I don’t like are capitalism” rules the day.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Did Tyson actually say that? Seems pretty dumb even for him.
ashok36@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I would highly highly doubt it. He’s just the “science man” of memes so he’s used as a stand in for all scientists, or at least science communicators.
LordSinguloth@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
That ain’t what yall were saying 2 years ago
AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 10 months ago
Be real here. If you were saying “science is a process” in 2022, you were following it up with “and that’s why we shouldn’t trust its conclusions until they’ve had at least five years to settle, by which time I won’t have to wear a mask or get the shot anyway”
LordSinguloth@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Cute assumptions
You know what they say about assuming?
Makes an ass out of U and ME (assUme)
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
This is what I was saying but big tech bannished me from my own kind.
Gay Frogs: A Deep Dive www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uSbp0YDhc
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Capitalists AND Reviewer 2… Never underestimate the power of Reviewer 2 in publication!
MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 10 months ago
I swear it’s an official rule that reviewer 2 is required to be a huge pain in the ass.
rbesfe@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
OP has never heard of research grants
10_0@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
Sauce? For scientific research purposes
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Internet says Bro Aniki.
Hardy@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
Chapeau
fah_Q@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Science it’s what plants crave!
veganpizza69@lemmy.world 10 months ago
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
keep the tankies under capitalism, lets figure something better out.
Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Bless your heart…
Rolando@lemmy.world 10 months ago
abfarid@startrek.website 10 months ago
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.
shneancy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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
frezik@midwest.social 10 months ago
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.
samus12345@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.
Tattorack@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Very ironic comment.
mutant_zz@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Extremely subjective creatures, many of which believe they’re always right (including many “scientists”).
But yeah, you’re right, the reality is somewhere between the two extremes of the meme. Although we might also want to have a conversation about what “pure objectivity and truth” means.
abfarid@startrek.website 10 months ago
We like putting things into boxes. It simplifies things. It’s easier to put things into objective boxes in math and physics, but the further from those you get, more subjective these boxes become. Biology is almost entirely subjective, we just draw a line in the sand where it suits our needs (at the time) the best.
SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Even if we were beings of implacable logic, there would also be the issue that we aren’t omniscient. We are never going to reach the full truth of everything because we aren’t going to be able to gather all the data.
abfarid@startrek.website 10 months ago
We can’t be sure of that. Maybe we will constantly be approaching the truth and never reach it. Or maybe we will just figure out every rule governing the quantum physics and extrapolate all the macro physics. Who knows.
Maybe there are meta physics responsible for creating our physics. Like, laws governing the creation of universes with different physics in each of them. Maybe it’s meta physics all the way down…