Science Memes

10826 readers

3115 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

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

569

Big Science (mander.xyz)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 124 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It needs to be “if you disagree without evidence.”

They can leave that whole “if you’re not a scientist” bit in the rubbish bin.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago (3 children)

If you disagree without evidence, you're not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it's just as valid as anybody else's. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.

Conjecture is fundamental.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago

If you disagree without evidence you may, even by pure chance be correct, however without evidence and methodology to discuss it, you may as well be wrong.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The "you" here is misleading. Consider any scientific field, then now consider all the people you know. How many people do you know, if any, who can propose a theory that is equally valid compared to scientific consensus on some topic in that field? It's unlikely most people are friends with Aristotle or the like or are themselves in that boat.

Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Is it more likely that you or I or the stranger who fills this theoretical situation is actually an over confident moron? Overwhelmingly yes lol.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This thinking just leads to science being turned into a religion. Knowledge being passed down from blessed people who perform obscure practises, and the masses being expected to accept it without question. Science should be open and understood by all. Then it has the weight it deserves and then you can have proper public discourse about issues.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In no way does this make science religion. What it means is all opinions aren't created equal and if you want to have a valid opinion you have to do work. If you dont want to do work that's fine, but 998 times out of 1000 your "contribution" is you looking like a dipshit.

If you want to learn it learn it. If you want to participate, learn it. Science isn't just discussion between friends.

Edit: To be exceptionally clear, scientific discussion is NOT open to everyone all the time, and you have no inherent right to participate without preparation and investment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Without new evidence, disagreeing with established science is being wrong. Young earth creationists are wrong because they have no new evidence to contradict established science. Even thoigh the age of the earth was scientifically calculated multiple times and could be revised again with new evidence, flat earthers are wrong because conjecture about existing knowlege without evidence is just being wrong.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

A young earth creationist's hypothesis does not agree with existing evidence and so your example does not refute my argument.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

I believe they ment "If you disagree in spite of evidence."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I disagree lol.

This is conflating science and expertise, but it's probably still closer to valid than only "disagree without evidence". A person with no background on the area of interest (or science in general) is likely not to even understand what constitutes evidence of a claim. The set of non scientist people who can produce a reliable body of evidence disproving a theory that has not been found by experts in the same field is likely so small as to be negligible compared to the set of non scientist people with "evidence" from Facebook/other who are in fact just wrong.