“facts don’t care about your feelings” energy
Great Mug
Submitted 3 weeks ago by MattW03@lemmy.ca to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/348c5788-a98e-41c9-b0bb-f1e3f8c0af47.jpeg
Comments
can@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
kelpie_returns@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
[deleted]FerretyFever0@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
Yeah, a tad unfortunate.
Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Literally I would not be caught dead drinking from that thing
stray@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
The placebo effect would like a word.
OpenStars@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 2 weeks ago
A lot of the confusion around quantum mechanics comes from misleading cartoons about the double-slit experiment which don’t occur in reality. They usually depict it as if the particle produces a wave-like interference pattern when you’re not looking, and two separate blobs like you’d expect from particles when you look. But, again, you have never seen that, I have never seen that, no physicist has ever seen that. It only exists in cartoons.
In fact, it cannot occur because it would violate the uncertainty principle. The reason you get a wave-like pattern at all is because the narrow slits constrain the particle’s position so its momentum spreads out, making its trajectory less predictable. There is simply no way you can possible have the particles both pass through narrow slits and form two neat blobs with predictable trajectories, because then you would know both their position and momentum simultaneously.
What actually happens if you run the calculation is that, in the case where you measure the which-way information of the particle, the particle still forms a wave-like pattern on the screen, but it is more akin to a wave-like single-slit diffraction pattern than an interference pattern. That is to say, it still gives you a wave-like pattern.
It is just not true that particles have two sets of behavior, “particle” and “wave” depending upon whether or not you’re looking at them. They have one set of equations that describes their stochastic motion which is always wave-like. All that measuring does is entangle your measurement device with the particle, and it is trivial to show that such entanglement prevents the particle from interfering with itself when considered in isolation from what it is entangled with.
That is all decoherence is. If you replace the measuring device with a single second particle and have it interact such that it becomes entangled with that particle, it will also make the interference pattern disappear. Entanglement spreads the interference effects across multiple systems, and if you then consider only subsystems of that entangled system in isolation then you would not observer interference effects.
RedFrank24@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Unless it’s like… Sociology, or Psychology. They care what you believe.
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
What do you mean? Sociology I kind of get, but psychology nowadays is a purely quantitative discipline (despite its subject being squishier than other quantitative sciences).
Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
Science doesn’t have an opinion on anything, it’s a process not a person.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Haha science takes more faith to believe in than my religion.
- Sent from my iPhone
foodandart@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Sent from my iPhone
I guess prayer and ritual made the device possible, eh?
LOL!
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Yep that’s the joke, although I should probably have made it more obvious given that it’s the internet and there are real people who probably post this sort of stuff sincerely.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
/s aside, what it takes to use science is mental discipline, not faith.
blarghly@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
[deleted]xep@discuss.online 3 weeks ago
Science isn’t a belief system. It’s a way of making sense of natural phenomena.
Zwiebel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
- observe
- write down observation
- try to find a discernable pattern
- test pattern
We do not believe that it functions according to predictible rules, we simply look for rules and we have infact found some. That is why we can design a scyscraper and know that it won’t topple without trying it out first.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
If we look at the way the universe behaves, quantum mechanics gives us fundamental, unavoidable indeterminacy, so that alternative histories of the universe can be assigned probability.
- Murray Gell-Mann
“it posits that the universe functions according to predictable rules”
Not quite. Cosmologists accept a certain distribution of predictable phenomena within known parameters while leaving the door open to chaos, outliers, the as of yet unknown and unknowable beyond what we understand. From quantum physics to cosmology and the aspirational yet elusive grand theory of everything, science is prepared for a world weirder than we understand, and possibly weirder than we can understand.
Just because empirical evidence and the development of predictable rules are a very fruitful line of inquiry doesn’t mean we believe that is truth.
Philosophers of Science have rather lengthy volumes of work on the subject. I’m just a novice on the topic, but my take on the state of the subject is that we don’t accept science and even it’s laws as absolute truth, just a very practical, reliable, utilitarian form of inquiry and understanding which includes uncertainty (Heisenberg), probability and chaos. Scientists are prepared to abandon everything in exchange for somethign better.
Look at newtonian physics. No one thinks it’s the truth, it’s just simpler and useful for everyday engineering.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
There are rules that govern stochasticity, and especially the behavior of large aggregates of things that indivdually behave stochastically. It’s not a tradeoff of 100% locked-down order or headless-chicken chaos. There’s a continuum.
No one thinks it’s the truth
Within a certain range of scale, speed and energy, it’s an excellent approximation of the truth.
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
we define “science” as the aggregate consciousness of scientific researchers
This is something I wish I could preach convincingly to everyone. The activity of scientists, a social group, are arguing and trying to convince one another that their interpretation of the data acquired by using their tools and methods is what become a scientific consensus.
Forefronting the method (often a vaguely defined one rooted in a hypo-deductive model from about 150 years ago that most people learned in grade school) removes the relationships between people and other people and people and institutions.
I wish I could find the paper but there’s a wonderful enthographic study on how scientists interact with each other to transform the discourse.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Actually, “science” is a human activity and must care about what you think. It’s the universe that doesn’t care about either.
Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Sadly a lot of people’s beliefs don’t give a fuck about science.
Frenchgeek@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Is “Neither do I” written on the bottom?
FishFace@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Needlessly antagonistic, anthropomorphises science… hmm.
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That handle is on the wrong side, unless it’s for someone who is left handed.
Tja@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
It might be printed on both sides
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I want to believe you, but as a scientist I require evidence.
BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m right handed, but often find myself with the cup in my left hand, because I need my dominant hand for high dexterity tasks, like writing, operating computer mouse, etc.
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I will accept this task-oriented reply.
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Maybe it’s a personal reminder to the drinker
Dozzi92@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yeah so they can jerk off to their superiority.
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I would rather force my opinions on my coworkers
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Technically correct since science is a concept and doesn’t have feelings, unlike animals, and possibly plants, fungi, all forms of life, who knows, rocks? Idk.
nil@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
But is light particle or wave?
Johanno@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Yes!
Zink@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Everything is a wave if you dig deep enough.
At least, as far as we know right now. But the standard model and quantum field theory have been really solid with really precise predictions for many decades at this point. (not any kind of expert here, just find it interesting)
pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 2 weeks ago
a secret third thing
HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
“Its just my opinion”
No. Science isn’t about opinions. Its facts and nothing else.
If you’re putting your opinion in science, its no longer science.
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 2 weeks ago
In Chile, in 1960, after the great Valdivia earthquake, in a small beach town in southern Chile, to “calm the seas” after the tsunami, a mapuche machi (chilean indigenous people; chaman), did a human sacrifice, killing a little child, they were absolved because they “were acting in accordance of an extreme fear of their gods of their belief”, and it angers me always so much that story.
When they tell me to respect other people’s believes, I always think of that case, is then OK to kill children if you say is to “calm your angered gods?” Apparently yes, fuck that no I won’t accept people believeing in bullshit.
es.wikipedia.org/…/Sacrificio_humano_del_5_de_jun… here is the Wikipedia of the incident, seemingly there is no English wikipedia, so use translate if you don’t know Spanish.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Sure does. But nature doesn’t.
Gsus4@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
yeah, about that…yer funding…it comes in part from some of those anti-science folk… :/
RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Hypothesis?
SystemL@literature.cafe 2 weeks ago
If that’s true…
men cannot become women
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Science cares if your beliefs make you vote for someone who defunds research.i
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I irony being anyone who owns such mug does give a fuck what you believe.
RockBottom@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Science is a field of work, and its participants are able to think. But they don’t care what you and me think?
Lemminary@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I say they do in the same way that I care about the world in general, but I don’t think they pay much attention to layfolks for the purposes of their work.
Randelung@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Everything goes through our brains and therefore filters and interpretations. Science doesn’t happen if grants are approved and that usually means someone has something to gain. Even then, results are skewed by method and biases.
Science very much does care about our feelings, both individual and collective, every step of the way. That’s why there needs to be special care to take them out as much as possible.
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Plus, statistics make up the basis of pretty much all of our science. If you dig into the foundations of stats, you’ll find that it’s basically just formalizing our feelings. It just happens to be formalized in a way that appears to reflect reality accurately enough to be useful.
goodboyjojo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
science doesn’t care about your feelings.
RockBottom@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Science is man made, maybe rules of nature?
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You don’t know what science is.
RockBottom@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
That may be true. However, maybe the world wouldn’t in such a mess, if scientists cared for people’s thoughts? Otherwise that is all covered by corporate propaganda.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I want this mug
starlinguk@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
When I pointed this out to a very popular influencer last week I got doxxed by them. Luckily after a week of people trying to fuck with my account they deleted the message.
phpinjected@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
science is religion with extra steps but more open and less bloat.
Zwiebel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Well someone here doesn’t understand the scientific method
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Science is religion in the same way as sex is an airplane hangar.
Tja@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
It’s very much not.
Juice@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
Science isn’t an ontology, it’s a method.
God, what no humanities does to a mf
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Reminded me of this.
Image
PunnyName@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Exactly. I keep trying to get people to understand that it’s a process, just like running is a process.
5715@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
I have the suspicion, once you’re far enough in any field, you’ll view as a process what colloquially is considered a binary state. You’ll continue talking like it isn’t a process, because you don’t have the time to explain it all the time.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
And a method in which beliefs are important. Not the religious ones, of course, but there are other kinds of beliefs.
preussischblau@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Believing that science yields universally true results or is the only method of finding truths, however, is an ontology and something you have to believe.
yesman@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You just described science as though it were a belief system. In reality, science has a presumption that your ideals are false, not true. And a person who could only discover truth through science wouldn’t be able to dress or feed themselves.
flora_explora@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
I agree with the second part of that sentence, but who would think that they discover universal truths or any truths at all? The whole premise of science is that we cannot verify anything or find any real truth. We can just show that anything else is much more unlikely to be true.
Neptr@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Here is a video by the channel Dr. Fatima (former astrophysicist) which I think has some intersection with this topic. I may have picked the wrong video though because I haven’t watched it in months.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQdTmvqCgxI
NeilBru@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
[Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
While the term was defined originally to mean “methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists”, some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)”.](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism?wprov=sfla1)
yakko@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
I saw this earlier and really wanted to pipe up, but I just couldn’t bear it.