this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
683 points (98.0% liked)
Science Memes
20679 readers
884 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.
Meta Post Tags
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"
Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.
Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.
We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.
See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.
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
well... to be fair.......
Whenever I think about magnets I remember this Feynman interview where someone asks him why magnets behave the way they do, and he says that to answer a "why"-question you need a foundation where something is agreed to be true, and it seems like for electromagnetic forces we end up in " because that's how the universe is apparently".
Sure, but between nothing and the axioms of the standard model we end up with a fairly comprehensive description which can predict how different kinds of magnets behave in a wide variety of situations.
That's knowing how to use it, not how it works.
No, the theory of electromagnetism and by extension physics in general is knowing how it works. How to use it is engineering, a different set of knowledge which we also have some of.
I think they mean more the difference between what rules it follows and why it follows those rules. It sounds like we know more about the "what" but not much about the "why" for magnets (or any of the fundamental forces).
Feynman was a bit pedantic sometimes.
This seems to be easily said of anyone trying to popularize science philosophy.
That is sort of how the universe operates though. You can have a greater and greater understanding of the underlying principles of physics but eventually you do get to "that just how it is". Why is there no such thing as a negative photon, apparently we just can't have a negative excitation in the photon field, no one knows why.
I mean one of the points he's making there comes up in every good science class: science doesn't answer 'why' it answers 'how'. The goal of science is to describe what we see in the world; science less about explaining things. Its easy to do without being a pedant. He's absolutely being pedantic on camera in that clip.
Like if you look at how people treat science now: MAGA completely pissing on it because its funded by snake oil people. Rich guys like Elon Musk cynically using it as a way to bilk the public and government. The press just has different goals than the scientific community and I would say that clip showed some of that friction manifest.
I'd expect nothing less from a scientist. Decrying pedantry from a scientist would be like decrying financial accuracy from an accountant.
When its warranted yes, the pedantry is a plus.
The gift of a talented pop scientist is to know when to turn on and off the pedantry.
Yeah. Each time we think we've got it, there's another hole to dig deeper.
With a lot of things:
You start off with no knowledge, and it’s a big mystery.
You gain some knowledge and feel like you have understanding.
You gain a lot more knowledge and you learn how much more there is that isn’t known.
The President is either at stage 1 or stage 3, take your pick.
No he's at stage 0. He has no knowledge but he doesn't investigate he just makes things up and then says that.
We're talking about the person who thought that stealth planes were physically invisible.
you forgot about the parallel imaginary number line (√-1), i think that is where the president lives.
Wish he was at stage 4...
I can't wait until he's crossed the final stage
You meant stage 2? "some knowledge and feel like you have understanding."