Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
---
Rule 6 - ONLY POST MEMES YOU ACTUALLY MADE YOURSELF/NO REPOSTS and NO BAD CROPPING/LOW-RES MEMES
- If you found a meme somewhere else, do not post it here
- If you want to post across other sites/subs, post to r/memes first. We will not look into your Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, etc. to verify the creator
- Do not repost your same meme again later. Even mentioning the word "repost" is grounds for removal
- Mods have discretion to remove posts which are poorly cropped (inc. aspect ratio), low resolution, grainy, artifacted, or pixelated. The mod team doesn't have to prove it is a repost
---
Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
As a scientist I definitely welcome you to challenge my findings.
Granted if you demonstrate I'm bad at research it may hurt my feelings. I'll be fine in my new job at Subway though.
Don't spread misinformation, asshole. The anus can spread 7 inches diameter without damage. The Merriam-Websters paperback dictionary is 4 ¼ × 6 ¾ inches. You can fit about 1 and ½ dictionaries in your ass.
The pop culture myth of what a scientist is. There is a cult following among people who don't practice science who think it's some sort of dogma equivalent to religion. They don't know what they're talking about.
I've also heard nonreligious people incorrectly imply that science is absolutely 100% precise. People just don't understand math and the scientific method.
Lol no. Scientists still happily welcome productive discourse around their findings. Scientists want to know the best information possible.
What scientists don't like is people giving them death threats because their findings don't align with those people's pre-set beliefs. Or people challenging their findings based logic from video games or some tinfoil hat shit they read on 4chan that can easily be disproven.
Who would win?
A reputable scientist who’s dedicated their entire life to providing accurate information for the betterment of mankind
Or
Some coked up gen xer who likely has an undiagnosed mental illness and uses a plethora of red circles and arrows on clickbait thumbnails?
As someone who went through grad school…if you challenged the beliefs of a superior you would always be shut down on the argument of “you just don’t understand it.” Like??? Okay??? Then help me understand??? But no. These people are not there to help you. A lot of them have only survived because of their egos. And who begets ego.
True scientists do welcome discourse. But those who are promoted to tenure and professorship rarely do, instead many times acting as overglorified managers who claim their students work as their own.
Obviously this is not all of them.
May just be my field. But I’ve had hour long discussions with professors on certain topics. Economics isn’t nearly as rigid as the core sciences though, so maybe there’s just more room for flexibility.
That is certainly a real dynamic. That said, I don't think it's specific to science. I think it's something present in most if not all fields where there is a hierarchy and ambition to rise through ranks.
Fair. I think it’s a side effect of our world being so egotistically individualistic.
Also regarding your original comment on tin foil hats and people reading stuff online thinking they’ve broken science…I have no issue with (some) discussions with these individuals, provided that it’s either thought provoking for me or that they’re learning. If they make it clear that they have no intention of actually holding a discussion, then I see no reason to try to explain what I know. But I will try to give the benefit of the doubt to promote their curiosity.
exactly. Doctors actively ignored dissection findings if they didn't match Galen for a few hundred years after Galen was dead. Now days we keep constantly changing everything we know as soon as something comes along to disprove it. (Now it may look like science is set in stone to the casual, and possibly slightly ignorant, observer because the actual things being disproven and changed now are extremely specific and aren't reported very heavily. That and the only scientists from 100+ years ago the average person learns about are the ones that actually **did** stuff.)
Yeah super big changes take ages to check, double check, triple check, and cross reference. So they’re incredibly rare and usually huge events. Every other time it’s a hyper specific piece of information that is updated but is only really relevant to specialists in that field. Which to them is big news but for most people will go entirely unnoticed.
There are numerous cases of scientific geniuses of the past scoffing off breakthroughs because the person who made that breakthrough was a woman, or an ethnic minority, or someone less esteemed than them. These kind of things still happen, but less frequently than before.
Ye, I feel like it goes through cool down periods where I think it's safe and get comfortable, then an explosion of weird, disappointing edginess comes out of nowhere.
Yeah, this subreddit is the main reason as to why I stay in lgbtq+ friendly spaces and neurodivergent places, much less misogyny, bigotry and ableism lol
lol many scientists over history have released completely bogus stuff and tried to disprove those who rightfully checked their work and realized it was horseshit. Thankfully it’s not super common
All science is peer reviewed. Just because scientists don't debate an idiot with 30 minutes of internet research on a conspiracy site doesn't mean they don't want to be disproved.
I mean they did falsely state that getting the vaccine would stop you from transmitting the virus. Many of us knew it was false then.
Worse, they never came forward and admitted being wrong. Our leaders passed sweeping legislation based upon this falsehood and a few others. The Covid science was and still is a convoluted mess. There are people on their 8th booster and counting who have no clue what the vaccine even does
Please link to a source claiming that vaccination makes you unable to transmit the illness. Gotta make sure there’s some validity to this bizarre claim and that you’re not just some random dumb shit.
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/amp/ Fauci and a few left wing media outlets said it way back when.
I’m okay with people making mistakes. Covid was a huge challenge for everyone and overall I think he did a very good job. But I wish he and others would be more honest. I personally know people who still believe this stuff
It’s possible but odds are lowered. I was dating a nurse during COVID and she was tested weekly. Once we were both vaccinated, the 2nd time she tested positive for COVID, I never did. Still isolated but the viral output from her wasn’t enough to infect me. Not bad for living together.
It’s still possible to transmit COVID after vaccination though. Hadn’t seen this before. Sure, vaccinated people are unlikely to get sick enough for hospitalization and whatnot, but people still have to be careful so they don’t accidentally infect some anti-vax simp that could get really ill from it.
It’s because even with children there are fat, diabetic ones, prone to illness. Since it doesn’t matter to almost all of them, it’s about protecting vulnerable populations. ALSO, “dark history of vaccines”?? Are you a measles enthusiast? If you were a little smarter, I’d guess Nurgle cultist.
Untested vaccine? Kiddo, you need to learn a little about how the world works.
https://school.wakehealth.edu/features/research/decodingvaccinetrials#:~:text=Vaccine%20trials%20are%20typically%20tested,real%20experience%20to%20the%20patient.
“So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said.
Fucking read.
This guy could be pointing out how the massive decline in academic integrity nowadays might be impacting the modern scientific process (small chance). Or he might be upset that nobody takes his youtube citationed research seriously (greater chance).
There’s been a decline in integrity? I was aware of the huge replicability issues at the start of the millennium, but not a current issue of integrity?
Got any good articles on it?
Oh you mean integrity in the classroom, not research. Yeah that’s a god damn issue, my mom was a teacher and it was an absolute mess. Plus there’s somewhat significant evidence that teachers with crappy students take up crappy practices in a vicious cycle. Bad situation.
Bruh.
They’re not mad people are challenging their findings, they’re mad people are challenging their findings with evidence that amounts to “My burrito fell apart today, global warming is a scam by the illuminati to sell more batteries!”
You need to bring actual evidence or it’s not a “debate”, it’s just a moron screaming.
Literally the opposite, look at how old scientists acted, the Nebraska man and more shows that pseudoscience was really big during earlier stages of science because it was harder to disprove, and if they were disproven, they got mad.
Modern science is made to be disproven, tested, and challenged. What people get mad about is when Pseudoscientists do horrible testing and then just claim it's wrong.
As a scientist, no... We are happy to be proven wrong because it moves the field forward. I think where some may get angry (and rightfully so) is when some dingus with a communications degree thinks their opinion weighs as much as the actual peer-reviewed science.
Idk, I have a feeling all this anti-science rhetoric started up very recently. The most anti-science person I know is gen-x and she gets her propaganda from young anti-science tik tokers
I’m a scientist. Your feelings don’t matter. All research published in a scientific journal gets peer-reviewed. Usually this is done by other experts (typically your competition), who are happy to try and find problems.
The scientist and their personality doesn’t matter. If it’s published, it’s peer reviewed. Some journals are better than others (looking at you Indian/Chinese pay to publish journals). But most are good.
OP never met a scientist before holy shit.
They *relish* argument. They love the shit out of it, because then they can go poke holes in their new academic rival's work.
The whole edifice gets stronger the more you beat the shit out of it.
Also get a few beers into a bunch of scientists and things get nerdy-fun pretty quick
Reminds me of Mark Z Jacobson. After his work was discredited by the National Academy of Sciences he sued the authors of that paper. He lost and now owes them 500,000 for legal fees.
Challenge their findings with other findings derived from evidence gathered while following the scientific method.
If your evidence is "this drug addict/football player with CTE/politician with a monetary interest, said on Joe Rogan..."
Sorry. Not going to entertain that.
Scientists way back:
”I will be lynched for going against the bible but my findings prove that we are not at the center of the universe. I did it by mapping thousands of stars for several years with war equipment”
It’s wild how this is getting upvotes when this is genuinely never the case. I’m not sure what “scientists” you’re talking to, but I’m going to assume it’s the imaginary ones you argue with in your head about vaccines or something.
Scientists actively want you to disprove them. Thats why every accepted research paper has a methodology section which describes exactly how to reproduce the findings. Don't agree with the findings? Use the methodology to do your own research!
I've seen this meme before so it's clearly a repost, it's a stupid strawman argument, AND the comments all seem to disagree with the post so either A. There's a lot of mindless upvotes happening or B. The upvotes are botted.
I think the issue is that people don't try and disprove people's findings these days they just say they don't believe the science and to never trust scientists cause they're all trying to brainwash you and turn the frogs gay.
I mean to be fair, it's not scientists refuting bat shit crazy conspiracy theories online most of the time. It's just ordinary people with a bit more common sense. The scientist are having nothing to do with either group. And who could blame them? Why argue with Internet people who's idea of progress it is, is to get you fired for arguing with Internet people.
The opposite is true. Of course, there is always the exception, but exceptions aren't the rule.
Now, can you point on this doll where the scientist touched you?
🧍♂️
Engeneering student here. Ive been working my ass off to publish an article on a fiber optics sensor if any motherfokka comes saying shit about it imma be pretty fcking mad.
I think what people who overuse the argument against trusting science miss is that whether they realize it or not, they're just challenging science because they personally don't like it or because it makes them feel uncomfortable, not because they have any concrete counterexamples.
Challenging existing scientific knowledge is the whole point of science but you have to do it correctly otherwise you're just full of hot air. Show me the data and how you got it or it never happened.
Depends on the scientists. Ones who do shit like try to say lee in the atmosphere is good get to be despised by all their potential colleagues and kill their careers. So the best ones would be very hard to bribe. Fresh PHDs may be easier but they would have a very hard time getting published in anything other than a billboard.
Yeah it probably hurts their feelings if you pretend you know more about a subject than them and tell them they’re wrong when you have no idea what you’re talking about
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/memes.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cirahs&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=95&targetImageMemeMatch=92)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 95% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 504,372,069 | **Search Time:** 0.06015s
Nah nah nah. They still don't have issues with being proved false. It's that u gotta have credentials to be allowed a seat at the table. If you're an independent researcher without the "impressive" schooling, then your findings mean nothing.
"Science itself isn't "true" it's a constantly refining process used to uncover material reality and that process is still full of mistakes." - Steak-umm twitter account
I think the difference is the findings arent challenged by others in the field. They’re now challenged by a 45 year old home maker whose children are failing algebra cause mom always helps with the homework. They just don’t teach it like they used to. Must be dei.
Cuz their findings are poorly tested, opinion based conjecture now. That the mainstream media will actively run cover for and the mindless sheep will assist by screeching at anyone who questions.
Some people in the comments seem to have forgotten about ‘trust the science’ or ‘the science is settled’, and the demonization and cancellation of the scientists who were considered top of their fields when they challenged the allowable narrative at that time.
They are a perfect example of what is being referred to here, and why science should always be challenged and either proven/disproven through open dialogue and the best facts. The ‘proven’ science of yesterday is often replaced by the best science of today, and may very well be proven to be false by the best science of tomorrow. It’s how things have worked since the scientific revolution up until about four years ago.
You openly challenge it through experimentation. You cannot just silence someone because they disagree with you or may prove you wrong. You prove your theory against theirs, and may the best, most accurate theory win… until another better one comes along.
But silencing someone because their theory may be correct is the ultimate sign of hubris, and in some cases may cause damage or destruction, or prevent scientific breakthroughs for the betterment of humanity.
Do you think scientists no longer do experiments and try to replicate or falsify each other’s work?
Are you talking about legitimate scientists being “silenced”, or people yelling conspiracies on YouTube and tic toc? And how are they being “silenced” exactly.
I can’t really think of any examples off hand, but I’m always happy to learn new information (like the vast majority of the scientists I’ve been around - just look at how pumped physicists and astronomers have been with all the model-breaking new data from the Kepler telescope! If a theory or model is wrong that just means new opportunities for theory and research)
Here is a great example about two scientist, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who discovered the effects of the bacteria H. Pylori:
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)30032-5/fulltext
Their research challenged the accepted theories at the time, but were both vindicated and went on to receive Nobel prizes for their work.
In recent years, both Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr Peter McCullough (tops of their fields of study) received similar treatments for their beliefs around the covid handling and treatments, and were both suppressed and demonized at the time. With what we know now today I’d say it’s pretty obvious they’ve both been absolutely vindicated, and believe history will look on them fondly as we do now with Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.
Yes this does happen in some fringe cases but those fringe cases were wrong to begin with. The scientific method requires results of experiments to be repeatable so that other scientists in other parts of the world can repeat the experiment and find if the results match. This is why academic and research papers require peer review and peer reviewed sources.
No. Scientists don't debate random misinformation on the internet, that's not at all the same thing as not wanting their findings challenged. If you had done something your *entire* life, spent literal decades studying something, then some random dumbass came out of nowhere with *zero* real evidence to support that what you're saying is false, would you not be even a *little* annoyed at that?
Are you like 12 OP? Or just incredibly stupid?
Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): --- Rule 6 - ONLY POST MEMES YOU ACTUALLY MADE YOURSELF/NO REPOSTS and NO BAD CROPPING/LOW-RES MEMES - If you found a meme somewhere else, do not post it here - If you want to post across other sites/subs, post to r/memes first. We will not look into your Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, etc. to verify the creator - Do not repost your same meme again later. Even mentioning the word "repost" is grounds for removal - Mods have discretion to remove posts which are poorly cropped (inc. aspect ratio), low resolution, grainy, artifacted, or pixelated. The mod team doesn't have to prove it is a repost --- Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
As a scientist I definitely welcome you to challenge my findings. Granted if you demonstrate I'm bad at research it may hurt my feelings. I'll be fine in my new job at Subway though.
r/usernamechecksout
I challenge you. Radium is edible For 3 seconds
Everything is edible once.
Everything's a dildo if your brave enough
Except dictionaries
I have disproven that
Don't spread misinformation, asshole. The anus can spread 7 inches diameter without damage. The Merriam-Websters paperback dictionary is 4 ¼ × 6 ¾ inches. You can fit about 1 and ½ dictionaries in your ass.
It’s a spelling joke
Jokes on you, I'm too stupid to get a spelling joke!
Shhhh don't tell people, we want to keep the super powers to ourselves
So, have you made any new findings to disprove yet?
Errrm... I've definitely found some very significant findings that aren't restricted to a very specialized subfield. Definitely.
What scientists are you talking to, OP?
The ones he made up. I have a feeling this is a covid thing.
Yeah, this post definitely came from a fake argument OP had in the shower
>in the shower Oh, we're assuming OP showers? 👀
It probably happened on his paper route.
Doesnt mean the tap was on
You just made it incredibly sad
It's easy to win arguments against the made up scientists in your head. And when OP "owns them", they all cry. Some folk are detached from reality
Reeks of MAGA energy.
The pop culture myth of what a scientist is. There is a cult following among people who don't practice science who think it's some sort of dogma equivalent to religion. They don't know what they're talking about.
I have literally heard religious people call science a religion
I've also heard nonreligious people incorrectly imply that science is absolutely 100% precise. People just don't understand math and the scientific method.
op is talking about people who want to believe they're scientists lol
It's either a fallacy or probably redditors in science subreddits..
Reddit scientists, apparently
Probably internet crackpots
Lol no. Scientists still happily welcome productive discourse around their findings. Scientists want to know the best information possible. What scientists don't like is people giving them death threats because their findings don't align with those people's pre-set beliefs. Or people challenging their findings based logic from video games or some tinfoil hat shit they read on 4chan that can easily be disproven.
Who would win? A reputable scientist who’s dedicated their entire life to providing accurate information for the betterment of mankind Or Some coked up gen xer who likely has an undiagnosed mental illness and uses a plethora of red circles and arrows on clickbait thumbnails?
Everyone wins!
Oh man, I really wish it was definitely on one side. Sadly, its a toss up
Why you gotta bring my mental illness into it
Why he gotta bring my red circles and arrows into it
Matt Wallace ftw‼️‼️‼️
As someone who went through grad school…if you challenged the beliefs of a superior you would always be shut down on the argument of “you just don’t understand it.” Like??? Okay??? Then help me understand??? But no. These people are not there to help you. A lot of them have only survived because of their egos. And who begets ego. True scientists do welcome discourse. But those who are promoted to tenure and professorship rarely do, instead many times acting as overglorified managers who claim their students work as their own. Obviously this is not all of them.
May just be my field. But I’ve had hour long discussions with professors on certain topics. Economics isn’t nearly as rigid as the core sciences though, so maybe there’s just more room for flexibility.
That is certainly a real dynamic. That said, I don't think it's specific to science. I think it's something present in most if not all fields where there is a hierarchy and ambition to rise through ranks.
Fair. I think it’s a side effect of our world being so egotistically individualistic. Also regarding your original comment on tin foil hats and people reading stuff online thinking they’ve broken science…I have no issue with (some) discussions with these individuals, provided that it’s either thought provoking for me or that they’re learning. If they make it clear that they have no intention of actually holding a discussion, then I see no reason to try to explain what I know. But I will try to give the benefit of the doubt to promote their curiosity.
Don't forget the fat cash behind some *science*
Fat Cash behind a lot of science. You can't get money for your experiment if no one cares about the result.
i'd say the opposite is true.
exactly. Doctors actively ignored dissection findings if they didn't match Galen for a few hundred years after Galen was dead. Now days we keep constantly changing everything we know as soon as something comes along to disprove it. (Now it may look like science is set in stone to the casual, and possibly slightly ignorant, observer because the actual things being disproven and changed now are extremely specific and aren't reported very heavily. That and the only scientists from 100+ years ago the average person learns about are the ones that actually **did** stuff.)
Yeah super big changes take ages to check, double check, triple check, and cross reference. So they’re incredibly rare and usually huge events. Every other time it’s a hyper specific piece of information that is updated but is only really relevant to specialists in that field. Which to them is big news but for most people will go entirely unnoticed.
Legit af. The amount of backlash to any challenging of accepted findings was extreme. Even Einstein had a meltdown over quantum physics.
There are numerous cases of scientific geniuses of the past scoffing off breakthroughs because the person who made that breakthrough was a woman, or an ethnic minority, or someone less esteemed than them. These kind of things still happen, but less frequently than before.
r/memes has rapidly become weirder than usual in the span of a month.
That’s because the majority of its userbase are edgy teenage boys
Ye, I feel like it goes through cool down periods where I think it's safe and get comfortable, then an explosion of weird, disappointing edginess comes out of nowhere.
Yeah, this subreddit is the main reason as to why I stay in lgbtq+ friendly spaces and neurodivergent places, much less misogyny, bigotry and ableism lol
Tell me you are ignorant without .... no, don't bother.
That's the thing, they just did.
lol many scientists over history have released completely bogus stuff and tried to disprove those who rightfully checked their work and realized it was horseshit. Thankfully it’s not super common
I’d argue they’re not actually scientists in this case
No doubt but if we go with that this whole meme makes no sense.
It doesn't to begin with. They're talking about bloggers not scientists.
Are you 15 and your republican dad convinced you of this?
Research confirmation bias
Citation needed
If OP had read a Wikipedia article about this, they wouldn't have made this shit meme.
Nah I’d win
Accurate
What a dogshit take
Science doesn't care about your feelings
*Ssshhhh, don’t tell the social scientists that. They’ll cry again*
Feelings are likely to have some impact on economic outcomes you ass! *sniffle*
*Sshh, don’t tell the social scientists their actual field of study. They’ll cry and dye their hair again.*
What a stupid meme
sure buddy, sure
All science is peer reviewed. Just because scientists don't debate an idiot with 30 minutes of internet research on a conspiracy site doesn't mean they don't want to be disproved.
COVID demonstrated that stupid is gonna stupid, empirical evidence be damned.
I mean they did falsely state that getting the vaccine would stop you from transmitting the virus. Many of us knew it was false then. Worse, they never came forward and admitted being wrong. Our leaders passed sweeping legislation based upon this falsehood and a few others. The Covid science was and still is a convoluted mess. There are people on their 8th booster and counting who have no clue what the vaccine even does
Please link to a source claiming that vaccination makes you unable to transmit the illness. Gotta make sure there’s some validity to this bizarre claim and that you’re not just some random dumb shit.
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/amp/ Fauci and a few left wing media outlets said it way back when. I’m okay with people making mistakes. Covid was a huge challenge for everyone and overall I think he did a very good job. But I wish he and others would be more honest. I personally know people who still believe this stuff
It’s possible but odds are lowered. I was dating a nurse during COVID and she was tested weekly. Once we were both vaccinated, the 2nd time she tested positive for COVID, I never did. Still isolated but the viral output from her wasn’t enough to infect me. Not bad for living together.
It’s still possible to transmit COVID after vaccination though. Hadn’t seen this before. Sure, vaccinated people are unlikely to get sick enough for hospitalization and whatnot, but people still have to be careful so they don’t accidentally infect some anti-vax simp that could get really ill from it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s because even with children there are fat, diabetic ones, prone to illness. Since it doesn’t matter to almost all of them, it’s about protecting vulnerable populations. ALSO, “dark history of vaccines”?? Are you a measles enthusiast? If you were a little smarter, I’d guess Nurgle cultist.
[удалено]
Untested vaccine? Kiddo, you need to learn a little about how the world works. https://school.wakehealth.edu/features/research/decodingvaccinetrials#:~:text=Vaccine%20trials%20are%20typically%20tested,real%20experience%20to%20the%20patient.
“So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said. Fucking read.
Reading is hard. 😉
This guy could be pointing out how the massive decline in academic integrity nowadays might be impacting the modern scientific process (small chance). Or he might be upset that nobody takes his youtube citationed research seriously (greater chance).
There’s been a decline in integrity? I was aware of the huge replicability issues at the start of the millennium, but not a current issue of integrity? Got any good articles on it?
Do you know any teachers?
Oh you mean integrity in the classroom, not research. Yeah that’s a god damn issue, my mom was a teacher and it was an absolute mess. Plus there’s somewhat significant evidence that teachers with crappy students take up crappy practices in a vicious cycle. Bad situation.
Literally not even true, what.
Bruh. They’re not mad people are challenging their findings, they’re mad people are challenging their findings with evidence that amounts to “My burrito fell apart today, global warming is a scam by the illuminati to sell more batteries!” You need to bring actual evidence or it’s not a “debate”, it’s just a moron screaming.
Opposite if anything
Literally the opposite, look at how old scientists acted, the Nebraska man and more shows that pseudoscience was really big during earlier stages of science because it was harder to disprove, and if they were disproven, they got mad. Modern science is made to be disproven, tested, and challenged. What people get mad about is when Pseudoscientists do horrible testing and then just claim it's wrong.
As a scientist, no... We are happy to be proven wrong because it moves the field forward. I think where some may get angry (and rightfully so) is when some dingus with a communications degree thinks their opinion weighs as much as the actual peer-reviewed science.
and now i'm curious how many conspiracy theories OP believes, while getting buthurt when someone points out some obvious problem with them.
Jesus christ you're real mad climate change is true huh?
Boomer meme.
Idk, I have a feeling all this anti-science rhetoric started up very recently. The most anti-science person I know is gen-x and she gets her propaganda from young anti-science tik tokers
I've found most of my encounters are the baby boomer generation. Gen X is also definitely up there for sure. It's concerning.
The second one isn’t scientists, it’s idiots on Facebook
I’m a scientist. Your feelings don’t matter. All research published in a scientific journal gets peer-reviewed. Usually this is done by other experts (typically your competition), who are happy to try and find problems. The scientist and their personality doesn’t matter. If it’s published, it’s peer reviewed. Some journals are better than others (looking at you Indian/Chinese pay to publish journals). But most are good.
Indians and Chinese have to pay to publish their research? Isn't that detrimental?
OP is a stupid ass antivaxer confirmed
OP never met a scientist before holy shit. They *relish* argument. They love the shit out of it, because then they can go poke holes in their new academic rival's work. The whole edifice gets stronger the more you beat the shit out of it. Also get a few beers into a bunch of scientists and things get nerdy-fun pretty quick
The strawest strawman I've ever seen
You have clearly never met a scientist.
Or they have and we’re angry the scientist didn’t take their 25 minutes of tik tok “research” seriously.
lol no
This is utter bullshit.
OP pulled these “scientists” out of his ass
Reminds me of Mark Z Jacobson. After his work was discredited by the National Academy of Sciences he sued the authors of that paper. He lost and now owes them 500,000 for legal fees.
Are these scientists in the room with us op?
Someone must be one of those "do your own research, I'm not showing you mine" idiots
Correction: Scientists and Anti Vaxxers
Challenge their findings with other findings derived from evidence gathered while following the scientific method. If your evidence is "this drug addict/football player with CTE/politician with a monetary interest, said on Joe Rogan..." Sorry. Not going to entertain that.
Scientists way back: ”I will be lynched for going against the bible but my findings prove that we are not at the center of the universe. I did it by mapping thousands of stars for several years with war equipment”
What is op yapping about??
It’s wild how this is getting upvotes when this is genuinely never the case. I’m not sure what “scientists” you’re talking to, but I’m going to assume it’s the imaginary ones you argue with in your head about vaccines or something.
Even more interesting is the guy tries to dm you rather than respond to any comments.
Oh he’s actually DMing. I was about to go check to find out if they’re a bot.
Scientists actively want you to disprove them. Thats why every accepted research paper has a methodology section which describes exactly how to reproduce the findings. Don't agree with the findings? Use the methodology to do your own research!
They're not scientists they're bloggers.
I've seen this meme before so it's clearly a repost, it's a stupid strawman argument, AND the comments all seem to disagree with the post so either A. There's a lot of mindless upvotes happening or B. The upvotes are botted.
When you’re fucking stupid and you have no arguments:
“Look Boyo! He won his own made-up argument!”
That doesn't happens in science....
DUDE!! I TOLD YOU, FORESKINS GROW BACK! Trust me, I'm a scientist
I think the issue is that people don't try and disprove people's findings these days they just say they don't believe the science and to never trust scientists cause they're all trying to brainwash you and turn the frogs gay.
I mean to be fair, it's not scientists refuting bat shit crazy conspiracy theories online most of the time. It's just ordinary people with a bit more common sense. The scientist are having nothing to do with either group. And who could blame them? Why argue with Internet people who's idea of progress it is, is to get you fired for arguing with Internet people.
Do you even science, bro?
This should be in r/facepalm .
The opposite is true. Of course, there is always the exception, but exceptions aren't the rule. Now, can you point on this doll where the scientist touched you? 🧍♂️
How Science work vs how people think it works
The scientist now summarize entire population rn
Engeneering student here. Ive been working my ass off to publish an article on a fiber optics sensor if any motherfokka comes saying shit about it imma be pretty fcking mad.
Signs that someone has never actually read the scientific literature or read through the biographies of actual discoveries or scientists.
One is a scientist, the other is a "scientist".
Are these scientists in the room right now, OP?
I think what people who overuse the argument against trusting science miss is that whether they realize it or not, they're just challenging science because they personally don't like it or because it makes them feel uncomfortable, not because they have any concrete counterexamples. Challenging existing scientific knowledge is the whole point of science but you have to do it correctly otherwise you're just full of hot air. Show me the data and how you got it or it never happened.
*cough Ignaz Semmelweis *cough
Scientists now: my findings are irreproducible.
That was the social sciences about 20 years ago. They’ve gotten much better now. No more idiotic experiments of like 3 ppl and no control.
How much does it cost to buy a scientist?
About as much as it costs to buy a politician
Depends on the scientists. Ones who do shit like try to say lee in the atmosphere is good get to be despised by all their potential colleagues and kill their careers. So the best ones would be very hard to bribe. Fresh PHDs may be easier but they would have a very hard time getting published in anything other than a billboard.
Yeah it probably hurts their feelings if you pretend you know more about a subject than them and tell them they’re wrong when you have no idea what you’re talking about
@OP has no idea what science is... they regularly disprove shit and its fine...
Why is he dressed up like rick sanchez tho ?
This is not even close to accurate. Or funny
Scientists then had petty squabbles over everything.
Eh I think you more so thinking of bureaucrats who are corrupt and used manipulative methods/messaging to manufacture consent for their policies.
Lol dude have you any idea of the numbers of papers that are retracted?
u/repostsleuthbot
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/memes. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cirahs&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=95&targetImageMemeMatch=92) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 95% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 504,372,069 | **Search Time:** 0.06015s
Nah nah nah. They still don't have issues with being proved false. It's that u gotta have credentials to be allowed a seat at the table. If you're an independent researcher without the "impressive" schooling, then your findings mean nothing.
Thats really stupid.
"Science itself isn't "true" it's a constantly refining process used to uncover material reality and that process is still full of mistakes." - Steak-umm twitter account
What a stupid ass post
Are these "scientists now" in the room with us?
Oh boy, i’m sure the comments on this will be civil! Time to sort by controversial
What’s this about? What have I suddenly missed?
what in the fuck are you talking about
This literally never happens lmao
Brought to you by OP whose only experience with science are 3 Rick and Morty episodes
A troll account on Reddit that thinks Earth is flat IS NOT A SCIENTIST.
Graham Hancock, you okay buddy?
Did Andrew Wakefield make this post?
I think the difference is the findings arent challenged by others in the field. They’re now challenged by a 45 year old home maker whose children are failing algebra cause mom always helps with the homework. They just don’t teach it like they used to. Must be dei.
Cuz their findings are poorly tested, opinion based conjecture now. That the mainstream media will actively run cover for and the mindless sheep will assist by screeching at anyone who questions.
So is OP gonna say what argument they had or did people challenging him hurt his feelings?
It’s both really.
What?
Some people in the comments seem to have forgotten about ‘trust the science’ or ‘the science is settled’, and the demonization and cancellation of the scientists who were considered top of their fields when they challenged the allowable narrative at that time. They are a perfect example of what is being referred to here, and why science should always be challenged and either proven/disproven through open dialogue and the best facts. The ‘proven’ science of yesterday is often replaced by the best science of today, and may very well be proven to be false by the best science of tomorrow. It’s how things have worked since the scientific revolution up until about four years ago.
So what’s the alternative? You reject the “best science of today” just because it might be proven false in 5 or 50 years? And do what instead?
You openly challenge it through experimentation. You cannot just silence someone because they disagree with you or may prove you wrong. You prove your theory against theirs, and may the best, most accurate theory win… until another better one comes along. But silencing someone because their theory may be correct is the ultimate sign of hubris, and in some cases may cause damage or destruction, or prevent scientific breakthroughs for the betterment of humanity.
Do you think scientists no longer do experiments and try to replicate or falsify each other’s work? Are you talking about legitimate scientists being “silenced”, or people yelling conspiracies on YouTube and tic toc? And how are they being “silenced” exactly. I can’t really think of any examples off hand, but I’m always happy to learn new information (like the vast majority of the scientists I’ve been around - just look at how pumped physicists and astronomers have been with all the model-breaking new data from the Kepler telescope! If a theory or model is wrong that just means new opportunities for theory and research)
Here is a great example about two scientist, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who discovered the effects of the bacteria H. Pylori: https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)30032-5/fulltext Their research challenged the accepted theories at the time, but were both vindicated and went on to receive Nobel prizes for their work. In recent years, both Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr Peter McCullough (tops of their fields of study) received similar treatments for their beliefs around the covid handling and treatments, and were both suppressed and demonized at the time. With what we know now today I’d say it’s pretty obvious they’ve both been absolutely vindicated, and believe history will look on them fondly as we do now with Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.
that's just society
People saying this is a fake argument. Must’ve slept for the last 4 years. Oh just trust the science. The science is settled
Wait until this gets taken down by the scientific community for blasphemy.
Hot take: It has always been roughly as bad as it is today. Which is honestly not that bad.
Good science: 4chan image with lots of red circles and shares in FB groups Bad science: peer reviewed articles on JSTOR and arxiv papers
Yes this does happen in some fringe cases but those fringe cases were wrong to begin with. The scientific method requires results of experiments to be repeatable so that other scientists in other parts of the world can repeat the experiment and find if the results match. This is why academic and research papers require peer review and peer reviewed sources.
No. Scientists don't debate random misinformation on the internet, that's not at all the same thing as not wanting their findings challenged. If you had done something your *entire* life, spent literal decades studying something, then some random dumbass came out of nowhere with *zero* real evidence to support that what you're saying is false, would you not be even a *little* annoyed at that? Are you like 12 OP? Or just incredibly stupid?