this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
386 points (95.7% liked)
Science Memes
20412 readers
1103 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I doubt you've come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
The example you give isn't an example of subjective truth, it's an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn't the same thing.
I also doubt you've met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.
It's entirely possible, but unlikely.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
no no i've gotten really high and ass-philosophical and sometimes we take ridiculous positions (e.g. horses are just poorly behaved long dogs) just to see how long it takes for the other person to figure out we're high off our ass and giggling inside the entire time.
Good spot, i should have said "truly believes" instead of "claims".
I wish I could say I've never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You're right they aren't the same thing, but they're clearly tied.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth's gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn't mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Imagine being this convinced that one's understanding of gravity is objective truth, while also being this wrong about how gravity works
sort of. they just keep falling and missing
Ooh, time for science pedantry! The ISS is plenty close enough to Earth to experience almost the same gravity from the planet as on its surface, which is why it has to be orbiting at such speed - falling sideways fast enough and at the right angle so as not to come crashing down!
It sounds like someone still hasn't played KSP! Play it! It's great. You'll learn a lot, and you'll have fun doing it.
Stuff doesn't stay in orbit because there isn't gravity. It stays there because it's moving sideways while it's falling down, so it doesn't hit the thing it's orbiting. Without gravity it'd be able to just sit in space wherever it wants. Rockets mostly don't go up, they go sideways. There wouldn't be a geosyncronus orbit as all orbits would allow you to just sit above any location you want. A geosyncronus orbit is one that the amount it has to move sideways is, in degrees from the center of earth, the same amount the earth rotates.
Hmm, maybe. Others have covered this and it doesn't quite seem perfectly true, but let's let that slide.
No, that definitely doesn't follow. If truth is subjective it doesn't at all mean you can control it. It just means that what is true for you might be different from what is true for me. The reason that's the case isn't a part of that equation.
Yeah...
Not really....to any of that.
There's no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.
Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I'm not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that's within a fixed system or not.
Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it's not a given.
Yep, that's why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.
In this case, it does.
Let me put it this way: is the statement "there's a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies" epistemically true?
If truth was subjective, the answer would be "true" or "false" depending on the subject. For those whom the answer is "false", this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth. That implies they'd have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say "it's now true for me" and fall, or "it's now false for me" and stop falling.
Scientifically, maybe? Because that's what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.
But let's assume yes for the purposes of this reply.
And context.
Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.
That's a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.
But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.
There's a big assumption there that this is a binary.
Gravity control, doesn't have to be binary.
It doesn't even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.
But let's say it's magic, direct control.
In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off fully.
In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is conceptually true.
Which brings me back to:
Emphasis mine.
The fact that people feel different gravitational pull based on where they are doesn't make the concept of gravity different for each of them. You're just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
That's why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.
I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.
Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I'll be specific though so it's clear.
The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn't necessarily be a binary on/off.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.
The systems I'm talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.
Which , again, brings me back to:
For completeness, I should have probably said:
Agreed
As an aside:
What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.
You know, reading the thread I had the completely opposite understanding of the topic that was being discussed. Even now, I believe the other user was talking about the concept of gravity at large.
When having this type if discussion in academic situations, almost half of the time will be spent on defining terms to prevent misunderstanding.
Just using the word "gravity" is not specific enough. I'd recommend to talk about "gravitational pull" or "force" for the general concept, the one that applies the same everywhere. Then there could be the gravitational acceleration near the surface of Earth (or Gee's for short), which is subjective to the location of an object.
Honestly, my argument here isn't even about the science, gravity was just the example that was used in the response to which I was originally replying.
My point was theoretical was possible in both subjective and objective variations of .
I see you have cleverly noticed there is a 3D object in the meme image that is casting both projections.
This argument is one that is very, very difficult to have because it veers too closely to people's first principles.
On one side, we have people who know they are forced by reason to believe in all truths that appear before them.
And on the other, we have people who have decided they will choose to believe in all truths that appear before them.
Like, it's just a semantic difference. Nobody on the subjectivity side, nobody rational anyway, disagrees with the concept of gravity, we are just simply aware of our power as fallible human beings to destructively choose not to.
That said, there is something very dangerous about being in the second group of people, but thinking you're among the first. And frequently, it becomes a problem when science brushes up against cultural fields it has more trouble explaining.
It is not always possible to see the 3D object. The ability to recognize that two groups can both be 'correct', like in a Newtonian way, even when they disagree with each other is a very useful skill.
Yeah, let's not try to apply the scientific method to social problems, that can only end badly!
But let's not apply absolute relativism to science unless we want to end up with climate denialism.
Cheers!
Are you being sarcastic? The scientific method is still useful, you just have to know what its limits are.
I have no earthly idea what you're talking about. Please, inform my subjective experience.
Look at the picture above us. One group describes the shape's projection as a circle, and they are correct. The other group describes the shape's projection as a square, and they are correct. The only thing I'm doing is describing a worldview that is accomodating of these two perspectives.
Truth
Subjectively?
Speculative and Technical
The best kind of technical.
Correct!