And your greasy greasy granny
What Refutes Science...
Submitted 15 hours ago by ekZepp@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/49c3373f-ffd8-48cb-a416-1bf1f6067d23.jpeg
Comments
shasta@lemm.ee 46 minutes ago
rmuk@feddit.uk 4 hours ago
Who has time for YouTube? I get my conspiracies and lies from millisecond-long TikToks.
MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Dude, have you looked out your window? Its so obvious the qorld is flat… /s
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 hours ago
what if i watched THREE youtube videos?
Mothra@mander.xyz 5 minutes ago
You’re clearly an expert then, don’t hold back
Zorque@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Then baby we got an algorithm going.
solsangraal@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
don’t worry, science as conclusions derived from research will soon be replaced by bullshit psuedo-research-AI-word-vomit derived from equally bullshit pre-determined conclusions
JoShmoe@ani.social 14 hours ago
This has already been done by politicians and continues to this day
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 hours ago
And some scientists!
“If I repeat it in enough papers it’ll become true” seems to be the mantra of people with hard to defend theories they claim are fact.
snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Did you write this with deepseek?
kitnaht@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_fHJIYENdI
You should really watch this – AI is being used in real research, and not all of it is bad.
spujb@lemmy.cafe 53 minutes ago
Luddites’ main concern was the systemic redirection of revenue from them, the laborers, to the owners of the factories. They did not simply hate technology for technology’s sake.
The fact that you ignore this basic historical fact betrays an embarrassing ignorance.
I personally don’t give a shit if some AI is used in research. I think that’s awesome. But AI also actively and materially deprives laborers of compensation for their work, both before and after the model training process. And I fucking hate that.
solsangraal@lemmy.zip 2 hours ago
the problem is that AI can generate a million bogus “research papers” for every single legit paper. and for the general public (ie science writers, bloggers, news reporters, etc.) they are indistinguishable from each other. so unless you have literally done the research on a particular hypothesis yourself (good luck with that, with all the funding cuts), then everything is suspect
so the question of “are we better off with AI?” as of right now, is absolutely fucking not
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 12 hours ago
AI’s primary use case so far is to further concentrate wealth with the wealthy, and to replace employees. People who think AI is bad recognize that it is in the hands of the modern generation of robber barons, and serves their interests.
Those who don’t recognize this are delusional.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn’t think so.
zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 hours ago
True, a sphere would roll off
rmuk@feddit.uk 4 hours ago
Cow goes up, cow comes down, can’t explain that.
monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.
fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
But I said the phrase “scientists don’t know everything” so now you have to listen to my bullshit.
will_a113@lemmy.ml 13 hours ago
ok, but what about three Youtube videos?
Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
As long as they’re shorts, only showing one vague, unverifiable, third or fourth hand anecdote each.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
That makes sense. I heard that my college roommate’s pen pal said something like that.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Are they at least 3rd-hand, (or more) spurious sources with an inscrutable chain of custody, because if not, you can miss with that.
will_a113@lemmy.ml 12 hours ago
Are they at least 3rd-hand, (or more) spurious sources with an inscrutable chain of custody
Is there any other kind?
Slovene@feddit.nl 13 hours ago
Maybe, if they’re from potholer54
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
All hail potholer54! The guy is awesome
shadow_wolf@aussie.zone 14 hours ago
That why its such a shame that big corporations can and do regularly buy scientists opinions in exchange for funding setting up a ill give $xxx.xxx for your environmental impact study to not blame my coal mine. Thus by negating the peer review process. science can sadly no longer be taken at face value with out knowing who funded it and why. i miss trusting scientists who are clearly smarter than me because they fell in to the capitalist greed trap RIP real science we should have treated you better and i am sorry.
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
This is why you never trust a single source. For anything. Reputable news organizations have never trusted single sources, they always use multiple sources to verify information they are told. Science is not immune from this, and never has been. And even for those that you’ve followed in the past, times change, especially in a capitalist society with a massive oligarchy that owns the news companies, like modern western civilizations. Trust, but verify.
Mavvik@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
How often does this actually happen? The cases where this does occur stand out because they are rare. I really hate the implication that scientists are not trustworthy because some individuals acted in bad faith. Scientific fraud is real but it doesn’t mean you can’t trust science.
OpenStars@piefed.social 11 hours ago
OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 11 hours ago
- an anecdote your cousin told you
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Counterpoint: nuh-uh (They et. al., good ol’ days).
Citations
They et. al. (Good ol’ days). Trump proves that YouTube videos about The Creator that validate your feelings are equivalent to science. Many People Are Saying, 1(2), 10–20. Things I done heard. doi.org/I forget
MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 11 hours ago
Thanks, I was wondering what a tiny bit of partially digested dinner would taste like.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
That’s what I was going for! Sorry about dinner.
OpenStars@piefed.social 11 hours ago
Counter-counterpoint: uh... damnit, I forgot the tooth (*already*!?).
A statement which somehow makes so much more sense than the rest of 2025 so far.
You might want to banana.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Crazy town, banana pants!
miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 hours ago
Hey, but measles in Texas, and tuberculosis in Missouri, are making comebacks!
Ivermectin! RFKjr! Bleach!Learn to ReSeArcH!!
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Aren’t those just from the gay space lasers and Jewish hurricanes? I feel like their resistance means we’re on the right path.
TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
something that does count:
a dream about a snake eating it’s own butt (cool story btw)MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 10 hours ago
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 8 hours ago
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Because of the implication.
psud@aussie.zone 4 hours ago
Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little
See for example low carb nutrition
97xBang@feddit.online 10 hours ago
Isn't a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it's still le sahyênçe.
JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
While they don’t refute it, enough of those do prevent better science from happening though, especially when it’s needed.
Old_Yharnam@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
I need a tshirt of this
Pippipartner@discuss.tchncs.de 13 hours ago
Foucalt would probably be opinionated on this.
Zerush@lemmy.ml 40 minutes ago
Science is important, it helps us solve many of the problems we do not have without science