this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
965 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

12051 readers
1242 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 6 hours ago

Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little

See for example low carb nutrition

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.

In other words, well, science.

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Because of the implication.

[–] 97xBang@feddit.online 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it's still le sahyênçe.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)
[–] 97xBang@feddit.online 4 points 11 hours ago

Yeah, I'm being silly.

Isn't a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it's still science.

FTFM

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science

[–] oo1@lemmings.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Science requires systematic observation, measurement and usually variation (often experimentally controlled); and, usually, iterations.

One datapoint outside such a system is not science.

You can't even necessarily just insert a new datapoint into a pre-existing scientific sytem. The system itself may need to be adjusted, for example to test and account for biases that often occur due to how observations are made.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 hours ago

Not to my mind, science requires a testable hypothesis and evidence. I would argue that merely refuting someone else's hypothesis without providing a new one doesn't meet the bar of doing science.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 points 12 hours ago

Speech-to-text set to the wrong language or something?