this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025
689 points (99.3% liked)
Science Memes
17702 readers
1086 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.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, I'm going to have to remember that one.
But I am right
• Hargreeves, P. (2024). The Destide Doctrine: A Study in Eternal Correctness. Institute of Selective Evidence Publishing.
• Aunt Marjorie of Destide (Ret.) — Family Group Chat Announcement: “Yeah he’s right, he said it loudly so it must be true.” Forwarded 17 times.
• Uncle Kev’s Shed Think-Tank (UKSTT) — Workshop Bulletin #442: “After two pints we unanimously agreed Destide has never been wrong.”
• Destide, B. (2023). Sibling Review of Arguments Lost (Zero Found). Journal of Brotherly Bias.
• The Council of Mates Down the Pub (CMDP) — Verbal Report, 3:12pm: “Listen, if Destide says it, we back it. End of.”
• Cousin Lenny’s Independent Verification Service — Quarterly Accuracy Audit: “We checked. He was right. Again. Weirdly.”
• The Association of People Who Owe Destide Money (APWODM) — Statement of Support, 2022: “He’s correct. Please stop asking.”
• Gran’s Annual Christmas Letter (2024 Edition): “Our Destide always knew better than the teachers.”
• Professor Blenkinsop (Adjunct, Coffee Shop University) — Scribbled Napkin Review: “I literally have no idea what the debate was, but yes, he is right.”
• The National Board of Selective Citations (NBSC) — Proclamation #208: “Accuracy confirmed, pending no further questions.”
• Destide & Sons Ltd. (Fictitious) — Internal Memo: “Reminder: Always cite Destide as the primary authority.”
• Mum’s Facebook Post (public by accident): “Proud of my boy Destide for being right on the internet again ❤️”
"The fuck is you talkin about, I looked a buncha stuff up on my phone that's research!"
-majority of conservatives
I mean, that's most research not conducted by professional researchers.
The people I've met who do their own "research" do so because they believe the scientific community as a whole is fake. They'd take great pride in not being published.
So publishing validates science? Check out the number of faked Science, *CELL *and Nature papers with hundreds of references. Basically, the whole amyoid hypothesis is built on fake data.
Lancet published Wakefield's bullshit and refused to retract it for 12 years.
A lot of garbage is published.
Yes, I am are aware that while publishing helps validate science, it is not infallible, nor is it presented as such outside of people who haven't even tried to understand the process. There's a pretty big gap between "all published 'science' is fake" and "all published 'science' is real." that I, and most other rational people, fall under.
As I understand it, publishing lets others validate the science. You're not just declaring what you've discovered, you're showing your work - your sources, your data, your references, your processes.
After you've done all that, even if it's crap, someone else expressing an interest in going through all that can be quite a compliment. Or, if you didn't bother dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's, it can make you a mite defensive...
But yes, a lot of trash can be published. And since it is published, it can be shown to be trash, if someone goes to the trouble.
"In a series of all caps facebook posts"
The Journal of Facebook
Then they try to cope by posting a paper they haven't read that doesn't say what they claim it does
Well. I'd rather not name the site, because I fear you wouldn't understand.
It's all negative data