this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
350 points (95.8% liked)

Science Memes

20399 readers
2190 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Apparently? You keep making philosophical assertions.

You don't get to assert your philosophical views and then say, "I'm not interested is discussing philosophy" to avoid examination and criticism of those views.

[–] BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

do you agree with my assertion that some things are objective facts and some are not?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yes.

Not trying to say that everything is subjective, but that in particular is kind of a bad example.

I just think you're being dismissive, while setting your own ideas as being apart from philosophy.

[–] BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

i know that any example I could give could be argued against, and I really don't wanna dive into that because it has no end.

like I said, the only thing anyone knows for sure is that they're experiencing something, call it consciousness or whatever. however, that is not a great example of fact vs fiction, and this isn't a philosophy debate sub, so I tried to keep it simple.

there are better examples, but I'm just trying to explain a simple concept, not get into the bottomless argument of philosophical truth

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

But you're explaining it with such a bad example that it undermines the whole point, it's like if you said, "Some things are just objective facts, like which poems are good." That to me indicates that it's not really a simple concept at all, you just don't see the depth because you haven't examined it. Being unwilling to examine it, framing that examination as "the bottomless argument of philosophical truth," only reinforces that. If you're not willing to examine the question, then don't assert that you know the answer in the first place.

[–] BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

i don't care.

have a good one

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Don't try to explain things you neither understand nor care about then.

[–] BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

you're not my real dad! you can't tell me what to do!

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 56 minutes ago

I can only lead a horse to water, I can't make you think.