this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
852 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

19751 readers
2768 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MissJinx@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago (1 children)

dude i posted this and the evangelical sister of my sil replied AMEM. Wtf. do they even read the bible?

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

I originally read your comment as "AHEM" due to the typo

[–] Zuriz@sh.itjust.works 26 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Blessed are the double blinded, for they will see Truth.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

For they shall see causation too

[–] perishthethought@piefed.social 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

I was just touched by thy noodley appendage!!

[–] BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you search Etsy for “evidence-based practice shirt”, you’ll see some options.

[–] BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago
[–] KiwiTB@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Science based.

[–] hoss@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Peer review in principle: 👍

Peer review in practice: 🎲🎲

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 6 months ago

At least in medicine, evidence-based practice means more than peer review. It involves systematic review of a hierarchy of evidence.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Empiricism doesn't work without reason, btw.

[–] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ironically, not a requirement.

If you're purely empirical/empiricist, you need at least one person to walk into a pole to prove it's there.

If you're a rationalist, you could rationalise where the poles are.

If you use both, you're likely to hit yourself less than when utilising only one or the other.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Until a Cartesian Solipsist points out that your senses are inherently fallible, it is impossible to prove that you are not a Boltzmann Brain, and the only thing it is possible to know with certainty is that you exist, in your present moment of experience. You have no valid proof that you didn't run into a pole, let alone that other people are running into them more than you are, nor that the pole even exists.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Imagine being such a fanatic that you behave like the fanatics you criticize.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You don't seem to understand the concept of "mockery"

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's a lot of effort for "mockery". People generally don't spend time making art for things they don't care about.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

It's not hard to figure out that the cross-stitcher really cares about annoying religious people

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago

Do you see a lot of people criticising cross stitch?