this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2025
1483 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

17894 readers
1766 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.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 106 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Real. Curiosity is such a desirable trait in folks.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 20 hours ago (2 children)
[–] titter@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago
[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

That's why my friends call me Whiskers

[–] iatenine@piefed.social 46 points 1 day ago

I found by high school the kids who said that (that hadn't dropped out) moved onto a different argument by that age

Honestly, I know it ruins the joke, but I don't think there's as much overlap between the top and bottom groups as one may suspect

[–] 58008@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The "do your own research" people need to have it explained to them that even experts in their respective fields aren't automatically capable of parsing scientific literature. A family doctor with 50 years experience who prescribes antidepressants every day will have no deep understanding of what any particular scientific peer reviewed study on SSRIs is telling them. They need a grounding in statistics more than anything else, which most people just don't have. So the idea that a non-educated, non-scientist can read peer reviewed studies and come away from them with some sort of understanding of the issue is the thing that needs to be highlighted, preferably in high school science class (earlier, frankly). A willingness to slog through scientific papers in pursuit of deeper knowledge is admirable, but is dangerously misguided without proper training. I don't even mean training in the specific science, but just in how to speak the language of peer reviewed studies more generally. It's very much its own discipline.

I want someone to ask Joe Rogan what 'regression to the mean' means. I want someone to ask him what a 'standard deviation' is and how to apply the concept. I don't want to know what papers he's read, because you could read 50 true scientific papers a day on one topic and still have no idea what the current scientific consensus is on said topic, absent the requisite training. You'll almost certainly come away from it with a very wrong but very confident belief. Dunning-Kruger on steroids.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 24 points 20 hours ago

The 'research' that the "do your own research" people are referring to isn't peer reviewed scientific literature.

It's other fools' social media rantings.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

If we want children to learn these things, we should teach them these things directly, instead of relying on science classes. I'm not saying we should get rid of science classes, but the people who are saying these stupid things did actually take science classes in school.

We desperately need to teach classes that are specific. I learned a lot about problem solving from math classes, but I was shocked when I tutored other kids, and they only learned the math, but had no idea how to approach problems. And I don't mean just word problems, but literally even if you just give them multiple equations and variables.

My tutoring often went like this: "I can't solve this!" "What information to they give you? What answer do they want? What can you do with the stuff that they've given you to get the answer?" And then they get the answer. Then repeat. Literally no math involved in the tutoring for math class.

So, we need required classes, early, like in elementary school, that specifically teach problem solving, critical thinking, how to detect misinformation, and what I'll call empathy. By "empathy", I mean the ability to imagine yourself in another person's shoes so that you can predict why they're doing what they're doing. It's essential for detecting misinformation because you need to trust somebody at some point, so you need to understand how to tell who is more likely to be trustworthy. I also think we should teach children meditation techniques.

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So, we need required classes, early, like in elementary school, that specifically teach problem solving, critical thinking, how to detect misinformation, and what I’ll call empathy.

Good luck. The 2012 Texas GOP platform specifically opposed the teaching of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, the entire GOP feels the same way to this date. Also, empathy is now considered a weakness or moral failing in those circles.

Face it. The federal government and the state governments of a large fraction of the states are diametrically opposed to our desires.

Don't get me wrong. I think you're correct about what our goals should be. But calling it an uphill battle to achieve them would be an understatement of epic proportions.

Edit: 2012, not 2021

[–] Luxyr@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago

It is very much intentional in a lot of places to keep the status quo.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago

we should teach them these things directly, instead of relying on science classes

Ok, so by "these things" you mean logic, argument analysis, media literacy, critical thinking, etc.

Yes, I had classes like that, and I think they're much more important than science and math classes. You can learn science and math on your own from YouTube videos, but you need the media literacy to know which YouTube videos you can trust.

[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 21 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

I think equally important as teaching these things to begin with is letting students know when they're being taught a simplified model, and that serious academic discourse of the subject is still evolving and/or involves much more nuance (which is pretty much always). some people who do pay attention in science classes nonetheless think that what they learned is gospel and never re-examine it, or stubbornly refuse to acknowledge when said nuance is relevant because it seems to contradict the simplified model they've cemented in their brain as the whole truth. the kind of people who say things like "I know there's two genders because I learned it in high school biology" and apparently never considered why there would be collegiate and post-graduate studies on biology and gender (or why those are two entirely different fields of study) if we all already learned everything there is to know in high school.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 hours ago

I think chemistry is APPALLINGLY bad at this to be honest.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

There are something like 10 million students attending Christian school and the like, and another 5 million or so being home schooled.

They don't really believe in the scientific method and critical thinking, in general. At least in my experience as a student of a Christian school. I had no idea.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 16 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

To be fair, most schools give those classes only out of obligation. Doing dumb calculations of mols and atomic masses in high school is definitely teaching kids to ask "why the fuck am I even doing this?"

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

Learning some chemistry basics is probably still good though. Not that we're using it daily but just in the "hey mixing this stuff can kill you" or, in the same vein, seeing how it only requires small amounts to make big changes.

We're surrounded by chemicals in our everyday lives, learning a healthy fear of them is probably for the best.

Also high school is meant to prepare you for further education, if you want to pursue that, so it really does cover a lot of ground for basic concepts you need to learn to understand and gain further education in whatever field applies.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 hours ago

Kids are wired to ask that, so what, basic chemistry knowledge is extremely useful.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] nil@piefed.ca 3 points 23 hours ago

"those people" are drinking piss, literary

[–] BananaPeal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

And billionaires love people like that because it keeps the most obsessive of us focused away from the greed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I don't agree with this. The stuff written by, for example, the "vaccines cause autism" people can sound as sophisticated and authoritative as any textbook. A high-school education isn't going to help someone judge it according to its merits. Thus the problem is a collapse of trust in authority rather than a lack of basic knowledge, because ultimately an ordinary person can only decide to trust the scientific consensus without meaningfully verifying it.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But understanding how science works is key to having trust in it. If you lack that understanding you may just think it's a bunch of stuck up eggheads who pick whatever truth is convenient to them.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 10 points 1 day ago

It really depends how science is taught: whether they're tought to memorise a bunch of facts and formulas, or actually use reasoning...

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

But both sides sound as if they have done real science, so a basic understanding of how science is done won't be enough to tell them apart. You can get anti-vaccine books written in an academic tone with citations. They go through the appearance of presenting evidence. The only difference between the two sides that is visible to an ordinary member of the public is that one side represents "the establishment" and the other side doesn't.

Even professional scientists have to have a lot of trust in the institutions of science - if I read a paper then unless there is something egregiously wrong, I rely on the journal and the scientific community to check that the authors did what they claimed to do and that they got the results they claim to have.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago

The sad thing is those people did take those classes.

[–] Marinatorres@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago

Real talk: those “boring” science classes aren’t about memorizing facts — they teach you how to spot bad claims and check sources. That skill pays off forever.

[–] gravitas@pie.gravitywell.xyz 8 points 1 day ago

I always found science and history interesting even though i hated school.

Maths though, i always resented "you wont always have a calculator" … but now as im older i imagine kids today having a similar idea about "AI" and i can see that not ending well for anyone. 

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I took the minimum amount of science classes in highschool. Lack of science education is less of a problem than teaching you how to sort through bullshit and analytical thinking. I basically think that our school system needs to stop focusing so hard on teaching things from the textbooks in an ever-changing world that's cherry picked from an endless wealth of knowledge and focus more on learning how to be skeptical and check various sources and such. In school it seemed like research was always just a backseat to the goal, instead of the goal itself.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Ngl I like learning from textbooks now that I am out of highschool. I learn faster too.

And weirdest part is that I still can't study through my highschool textbooks.

I am geniuenly wondering if they were just simply terrible at picking good textbooks and overall using them to teach.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

On a related note having 6 different classes a day 8 hours total times 5 days a week made it impossible to learn properly.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My highschool chemistry teacher almost got kicked out of her university for trying to pipette hydrochloric acid with her mouth. That's who I want teaching chemistry, the crazy woman who knows what it means to fuck up, bad. Not some honor roll, life plan having baby bitch.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 4 points 20 hours ago

One of my high school's two chemistry teachers was missing a hand... due to an (undisclosed) chemistry incident.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

I'm going to be that guy about GMO crops. If we were modifying them to be drought resistant or need less water, I'd be all for it. Instead, what we modify them for is to be "roundup ready" meaning that glyphosate can be sprayed liberally on it without killing it making weeding the field much easier. I am not concerned about the GMO crop, but I am concerned with all my food being covered in Roundup.

[–] slothrop@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago

You're absolutely not alone with GMO concerns.
Celiac enters the chat.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nek0d3r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 hours ago

As a kid I always thought a lot of stuff taught was like, duh, so obvious. It took being thrown in the adult world to see hmm... I guess... not obvious enough???

load more comments
view more: next ›