this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
481 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

15572 readers
2448 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
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

which plants though? are you making shit up?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Wasn't this more about taking away the names from a bunch of people who in hindsight were terrible people? I remember something awhile back about people getting upset because some groups had decided that if you had a shred of negativity in your past, you weren't allowed to discover and name things. I believe they were trying to change a bunch of names "to not honor the original person".

That didn't feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Science is a highly political process.

The real actual science, just ask petroleum, cigarettes, sugar, mosanto glyphosate, lysenkoism, grant allocation, DDT, lead gasoline and paint, amiante, IQ, operation paperclip, nuclear testing, SSRIs, opioid crisis, covid 19, gain-of-functionr research, psychology replication crisis, trans fats, usda food pyramid, even cold fusion and the latest entry in this list PFOA/PFAS.

Scientific truths and regulatory actions often "become allowed" only when they are no longer economically threatening to the incumbents.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Some of the examples are not shown to work. They are however still good examples since going down a dead end can be a good example. Deciding where to explore is deeply political.

Edit: you could delineate them clearer to make sure nobody thinks of you as a conspiracy nutjob, but you do you.

For e.g. cold fusion there was to the best of my knowledge not a single clear cut case where it could be replicated without doubt or at all. Errors just add up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Here is an excellent retelling of the cold fusion saga

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn92eWhGG14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbfJFPVApu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWlBZT7L1qM

Basically, as soon as the scientist had one anomalous reading, the political and academic machine got into overdrive, huge money started getting thrown around and the scientists got under huge amount of pressure and paranoia.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you're confusing "politics injected into science" with science. Science is data and analyzing it. Pretending someone didn't invent something is removing data points and I'm pretty sure science calls that fraud, just like we call the studies that found cigarettes healthy to be frauds, or the oil companies to be frauds. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"No True Scientist" would say cigarettes don't cause cancer or co2 emission don't cause global warming, or glyphosate isn't bad for the environment. Yet, it did, for multiple decades.

You have to consider "actually existing science" with it's political and financially directed function, choosing what questions get asked and who will answer them. You can say "oh that wasn't science it was fraud" which is all well and good now but it wasn't for those decades when they served to obscure or bury the truth rather than discover it.

Actually existing science is a really troubled institution and ultimately there is no such thing as science outside of politics, science is part of the political process and cannot escape or be independent of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yes, and I'm here criticizing "actually existing science". That's exactly my point. It's not "real science" when it's injected with politics and emotions like that. It's biased in a way science shouldn't be.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Most science isn't real science in that view, the problem is that most science is funded by ulterior motives, very little science is the basic, primary science of exploration. That creates both huges gaps where the political and financial establishment fails to imagine value (climate science) and also fake science where something should be true for the power that be, but isn't (glysophate, cigarettes safety).

We should always imagine as a flawed, politically and financially motivated enterprise, a tool in the grip of institutions that need to survive first and science second. Pure science is a rare thing and it shouldn't be assumed be the case whenever things are happening under the name of science.

This is the framework to avoid being surprised by scientific failures and to compensate for them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Have you ever been to a niche scientific community conference? It's always been 90% politics.

The Magellanic Cloud community collectively decided that they didn't want to study objects named after someone who had subjugated the ancestors of the communities studying it, so they agreed to call them the Milky Clouds. A pop science article went out about it and people complained that it wasn't science, it was politics. But unless you're a part of that community, you don't get to decide on the names of the objects that these people understand better than literally anyone else alive or dead. They're doing more science regarding these objects than anyone else has ever tried, they get to decide what's best, even if it appears political.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And that's how you end up with Gulf of America

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I see it as the exact opposite. If we let the professionals like cartographers and historians hold the reigns rather than people who don't have anything to do with it, eg. some pedophile politicians, nothing would have been changed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wtf are you going on about? I'm talking about changing the name of a plant because it's discoverer was a racist. Nothing about politicians or pedophiles. Ffs, some of you have brain rot as bad as the MAGA. I'm literally saying that history should remain accurate and not try to whitewash away the negatives.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hey buddy this comment wasn't a reply to you. Thanks for the insults tho really helps things out

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

And this is why nobody asks for fishos's opinion on how to name things.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Remember, it's only "revisionist history" if it's the history you don't like. Otherwise it's "because totally valid reasons".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.

Respectfully, this is a weak sauce excuse, and a completely unscientific attitude. Scientists do not establish arbitrary barriers between different fields.

These kinds of statements 99% of the time come from people who don't even do science, and whose understanding of science consists of "take down data points, analyse data points, be neutral" (paraphrasing your comment).

In reality, scientific names are usually given to honor specific people. The idea that the community just gives names to people who discovered things is simply ignorant of history. There are literally cases of people purchasing name recognition. There are also cases of people being honored by having their name on a phenomena they didn't even discover, or a unit they did not create (typical for units, which are standardised by committees and not named after people in the standardisation committee)

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 days ago (3 children)

From henceforth "trees" shall now be called "tall wavy bois" and "flowers" shall be known as "colorful stemmy bennies."

I will not be taking questions.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I'm Jewish and I'm upset whenever someone calls Jew Harp (an instrument) or Jew Ears (an edible mushroom) with another name.

come on, why can't we be associated with yummy mushrooms or cool cowboy instruments?

if you call it Jaw harp i want to break your jaw,

at least the Latin name for jew ear still says jew ear

[–] [email protected] 70 points 3 days ago (2 children)

what are the changes and why?

can't post this and expect us to carry on

[–] [email protected] 46 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah! I'm barely able to get mad about this with no information!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

This sort of thing happens all the time, and it's usually subject to some level of debate. Just look at the ponderosa pine (pinus ponderosa. Some say there is one species with multiple subspecies, some say they are just different varieties, some say that they are different species, or some are and some arent, etc.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

NPC wojak: "I love science."

"Science says sex and gender are two different things."

NPC wojak gets angry: "Science was corrupted by the Jewish cabal! See: John Money*!"

* John Money is not Jewish, but is pushed by transphobes with the hope you'll accuse him being one.

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

forget about John Money

look into Magnus Hirschfeld, had the first gender clinic and did research and surveys on gender, he pioneer gender treatments and helped transsexual people (that's was the name back then)

he was Jewish and was targeted by the Nazis exactly how you said.

The famous book burnings started out when they raided his institute and burned all his research.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago

Using Martin Hirschfeld has the issue of not being able to sell the myth of "transgenderism is a recent thing".

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 days ago (2 children)

"Pussy willow will now be called cotton stick."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

meanwhile,

we still refuse to call Sonic th hedgehog protein anything else.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 days ago (14 children)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago (11 children)

The only reason Pluto is no longer a planet is because we discovered there were loads more planets and couldn't be bothered to acknowledge their existence!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

It's been like that for decades to be honest. Ceres used to be called a planet, but you don't see anyone complaining about it's demotion

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

i've spent 25 years on this blue marble fascinated by space, and only recently discovered there multiple long orbit dwarf planets going around the sun??? that is so cool why is this not widely known!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›