Science Memes
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.
Meta Post Tags
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"
Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.
Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.
We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.
See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
view the rest of the comments
The error rate is also based on that assumption. If the carbon suddenly popped into existence 6000 years ago, then that violates the assumption.
The error rate is based on correlation with results from other methods of dating that don't have the same assumption.
What dating method doesn't rely on the same assumption of sameness across time?
Tree ring dating doesn't include that assumption. But also Potassium-argon or uranium lead dating require a different assumption of sameness across time, it would be highly unlikely for significantly different isotopes to experience similar issues of the same time periods.
If trees haven't always started from 0 and grown a new ring each year (barring weird weather phenomena), then how can we use it for dating? The only way that it works is if we assume they do.
A different assumption of sameness is still an assumption of sameness. And the "highly unlikely" claim you're making is also based on the same assumption, but applied to the universe as a whole. Why would you say that it's unlikely unless you've observed that the laws of physics have always been consistent during your lifetime and extrapolated that into the past?
I mean we can literally see into the past and observe the laws of physics being consistent, not sure what your point is?
The point is to hopefully get people to put some more thought into the position they hold and what they argue against so they can make stronger arguments. Contrary to popular belief, religious folks do listen to logic (at least, in my experience). But those who argue with them don't argue from a place of logic either, so obviously they're not going to be receptive.