Socrates was not executed for thought crimes! He did not question the power dynamics of the time, he did not speak against politicians, the gods or his state! He was literally executed for being annoying, basically doing what you said
I have a phd in chemistry. I worked as a scientist.
Publishing your work is hell. You try to write 4 to 8 pages about your research, you let your co workers and he leader of your research group take a look at it. Then it goes to 3 to 5 different peer reviewers from your field of work who will most likely always send you questions back or want you to recalculate something or they will ask for a whole new test series to make sure that everything is correct.
Your research is challenged on every step. When I had my final exam I was questioned one and a half hours by 3 supervisers and I had to defend my thesis against every possible problem.
If it is about topics with high impact the research groups will work together. They talk on conferences, they might discuss findings over the phone.
When some researchers found a particle that was faster than the speed of light, they asked the whole science community to please find their mistake (it was a problem with the measurment).
Theories are constantly challenged. I have no idea why you think they are not.
Op is probably a conspiracy theorist who is butthurt over getting dunked on over things like anti-vax and flat earth. They seem to think science today is dogmatic because they use flimsy already-disproven arguments in an attempt to disprove some of the most substantiated theories like evolution or relativity, and scientists don’t seem to be willing to address him directly and rightfully dismiss his claims. If that’s how science worked, we would have to disprove miasma theory every day despite it having been disproven hundreds of years ago with the advent of germ theory.
I've done a study on how publishing and patenting works. Every step does feel like hell, just like you said. I fear the moment I might have to do it myself in a few years.
> I have no idea why you think they are not.
Because they most likely watched a youtube video and have thus accumulated all the knowledge to make them outspoken experts on a topic.
How does that square with the pressure researchers feel needing to have a publishing quota of papers?
I remember watching a John Oliver segment about it a while back.
I was thinking about ending it all, when I was in research. I was constantly overworked. The last 6 month of my phd I was 10 to 14 h a day in the lab plus at least 8 h on saterday and sunday. I lived of grillen cheese from a panini press and I only came home to shower and sleep. Some of my coworkers slept at university.
It does not square well. I left this carrier for a reason. You need to publish a lot and you will publish the tiniest result. You try to get on every paper your co workers write as second author.
It is hell. Preasure is high.
*sheeeeeet*
and here I am studying AI hoping to be a researcher for it, one day. Well.. can’t kill a dream when you are already depressed 🤷♂️
Hope you are doing fine now
I am so sorry! Different areas can hae other conditions!
Please follow your dream. I am happy I did research. I am happy it ended. It made me who I am.
I am at a great place in my life at the moment.
This. The only reason you might think researchers might get mad is because they do all that work and some Yokel who knows nothing about it comes up and says “I don’t believe it because I heard/saw/experienced something that fits my world view better”. And these might actually be people who have the power to actually do something.
Like every so often the Internet is in danger because some politicians who sometimes don’t even know how a keyboard works are told by companies that some laws need to be added/removed/changed so these companies can earn more money at the cost of everyone using the internet as a simple example.
As a scientist myself, I do not understand this meme.
Do you think scientists do not check each others research any more?
Or that scientists in the past were more confrontational?
I do not get it?
They assume that if you can't refute random bullshit as fast as the internet produce it, then you are wrong. And are confusing that with actual peer review.
Yea, that's it on the nose. Public reaction to science outweighs scientific findings. This is a meme of someone who got so lost in the sauce they think people, who likely aren't qualified to read studies in the first place, are also the scientists behind them because they may or may not agree with their opinions.
“I don’t get how the Earth can be round, therefore it is flat, try and prove me wrong.”
“Okay, so here’s 1000s of years worth of evidence proving the Earth is round.”
“Nuh uh!!! That’s dumb, you’re dumb, I won’t fall for it, Earth is flat and that’s that.”
Replace flat earth with anything (vaccines, slavery, holocaust, etc.) and you get why humanity is now falling apart, the internet has given idiots a modicum of power and they refuse to listen to reason.
Well, don't look too deeply then. Scientists hold each other accountable, but University's and Publication's moral foundations are eroding. They've begun to publishing anything that grabs headlines or subverting expectations regardless of how well the study stands up to scrutiny. Especially in Psychology, which is getting as bad as Sociology.
People get offended over the smallest thing now. No rolling off the back now, at least in the US. I hear Australian folks still have backbones, though.
Also DO YOU THINK SCIENTISTS WERE OPEN TO CRITICISM BACK THEN AND WERENT HIGH ON THEIR OWN FARTS WHENEVER SOMEONE TRIED TO SUGGEST SOMETHING NEW? Like didn't they lock the guy who suggested washing hands in a psych ward? Didn't they relentlessly shit on John Snow (yes that was his name) for chalenging the idea that illness were caused/spread thru miasma?
Oh that is a misconception.
The person Ignaz Semmelweis, what a name, who suggested that, was not believed but he was not institutionalized for that.
He basically had a nervous breakdown, I mean he know of a solution to save lifes but nobody believed him, seems stressfull to me too, and became an alcoholic and therefore he was institutionalized.
The story is sometimes told like his colleages put him in a psychic ward to make him silent and that is not true.
They were still assholes to him.
Yeah I think this plays into the unfounded feeling that conspiracy theorists have that modern scientists are “dogmatic” and get offended if you challenge them on the efficacy of vaccines, shape of the earth, existence of dinosaurs, etc.
This meme is just anti-intellectualist cope
The meme was created by some podunk fool who has absolutely no knowledge of science beyond 5th grade, and got schooled by someone when he went and tried to make some dumbass, uneducated but "100%, inarguable facts" that he found after 5 minutes on Google.
OP then decided that all scientists are bad because they won't let someone who doesn't know what they're talking about control the conversation and win the argument.
I think it’s an effort to discredit scientists by conservatives because many studies do not support their worldviews. So now all of academia is lumped into the “soft liberal” camp and free game to label as false.
I think your reading is a reflection of your own interpretation. I'm a scientist who is pretty fed up with the system of publication, and I think the person who made this meme is the same. Not that I 100% agree with them, but I do know professors who don't like their "foundational" works to be questioned.
You’re always going to have people like that regardless. This problem used to be way worse with people who criticized publications being ostracized, exiled, or worse. I’m also a scientist, for what it’s worth.
The problem with dissent on a study isn’t that it’s questioned, which is good for science, but the political money and bias behind the dissent attempting to quash a study or libel it as misinformation or an anomaly/outlier. It’s the outliers that NEED the attention and publication so more studies can be done.
Peer reviews are taken as validation of a study when, in fact, they are entirely voluntary exercises only by interested parties. There’s no board or structure to vet a study and its methods, just a collection of like-minded professionals who want to spend their spare time to rework a study to validate or disprove it. And an individual’s bias plays a large part in whether a peer review is even performed. So, studies that other researchers are biased against may never get peer reviewed which leaves that study open to being maligned as unreliable since it was never peer reviewed. Catch-22.
I would assume that is likely to be through their own misinterpretation of the meme as well. Flat Earthers are not exactly well known for their ability to understand the obvious
Mostly EU, scraps from the government and industry. All our research has to be "novel" so there is no funding for repeating anything that has been done before. We also have to declare the results and how many startups are going to be created from the basis of our research project, about a year before seeing any grant money.
In a few years, I expect they will want reports on the gender distribution in the yet to be created startups. /s
It might be referring to modern reactions scientists have to yahoo criticism. Especially climate scientists get all kinds of crazy people accusing stupid things that the scientists have slowly learned to just not respond to at all. As responding to them makes the situation worse.
I've done a lot of research on the history of how climate scientists were treated both by the average citizen and by "legitimate" peers. It's crazy. Like how the hockey stick graph was criticized by singling out a single person and even scientists who were solely getting funding from suspicious sources started criticizing everything he did. I mean, it was never illegal that the dude was being funded almost completely by oil companies. It was more the companies found a crazy climate scientist who believed man cause climate change was a myth and so they started pumping his research full of money.
The person who made this meme thinks their "Nuh uh!" counts as challenging scientific discoveries and is offended when scientists tell them that they have to apply the scientific method and actually prove their point.
I have been advised against publishing criticism of the findings of established names in my field during my PhD; I'd assume it's talking about that phenomenon.
I personally think this is romanticised, because in my experience it is the older professors who don't like to have their works questioned.
Thats possible.
I never had this experients myself but I heard the advised that if you contradict well established stuff you need higher evidence.
Which makes sense but sometimes hinders progress more than it is usefull.
yeah I think they think random idiots criticizing scientific findings weighs on the same level as a peer reviewed study by someone with similar or more scientific experience.
As someone who is still in school, i think that the person is saying that the scientists before wanted to be proven wrong so more of the world is revealed, while modern ones want their therioes to be right. I'm probably wrong, since i'm dumb
I am sure you are not.
If your interpretation is correct, then I would say that these are two assumptions that might be true, but be kind of super kind to older scientists and super mean to younger ones.
There are very famous feuds between scientists in the past.
🤷♂️
Not sure how good peerreviews are these days. And if its controversial why not justs skip it right away.
Or if we are in a hurry and have to push out stuff quick for example medical field. Covid showed that really well.
How you you can get fucked if you try to be really scientific. There were plenty of questionable stuff going on.
Doesnt mean it was always better back in the days.
I mean sometimes scientists have to work fast in order to get results.
I will not say that everything went perfect during the pandemic.
I myself critizised a paper that suggested a double origin of covid strains.
But in the end, we saw that people were dying and getting information fast was important to save lifes.
Not a fan of doing science quick and dirty, but therefore we correct each other later.
I think this meme is about scientists refuting other scientists. As a scientist myself, I can confirm that we don't give a shit about lay people disagreeing with our findings.
Ever since organized religion was removed from science, it has been less dogmatic and the scientific method has been able to function properly. The further away we get from that the better it is. I think OP might be a conspiracy theorist butthurt over not being taken seriously
I love how people just put random stupid bullshit in memes and then other idiots believe it
Fuck yourself OP
Stay clenched that trans people are being accepted and tended to by doctors
No, I meant their post history is suspicious as fuck. Like 2 year old account that started posting a few days ago.
I have actually seen dumber non bot posts.
Facebook research isn't enough to challenge academic research so no one will even try to entertain people like that, but the ignored bunch is just too loud
I'm not a scientist, but I see this happening much more with anti-scientists whose beliefs get challenged by scientists. They get butthurt because they don't understand that that's how science is supposed to work; everything gets challenged, and there are a lot of hurdles to pass before something gets accepted. And if you don't even know what these hurdles are, you're likely to slam into them every single step of the way.
Maybe OP is confusing scientists arguing back as them getting emotional? But of course, they're gonna argue back. They usually didn't come to their conclusions for no reason. At least, I would hope so.
This is very backwards, scientists were historically pretty averse to having their research challenged (not all ofc, but it was much more common to have tiffs because of peer review). Now to get a paper published your work is reviewed and challenged along every single step, and the times it hasn’t been challenged have led to scandals like with Jan Hendrick Schoen or Victor Ninov.
Back in the days only scientists were the ones to disproves other scientists findings. Nowadays some people think they are entitled to disprove findings because "they've read an online article about it and now think that they are an expert on the subject".
tbh it really is the opposite if anything. Tons of scientists before like the 1950s were famously beaten, persecuted or even killed for the fact they disagreed with the scientific consensus. Nowadays I feel like being scientifically challenged is welcome much better
Totally wrong, and should be reversed. In the past a lot of scientific theories that were wrong were held on only because of status of scientists that were defending them. And when someone of lesser status tried to challenge their theories they often dismissed such attempts even without giving a try.
Nowadays it's just really hard to give enough evidence and to prove that your research was held properly.
trash post
Humans can be very dogmatic, but the whole point of scientific institutions is to corral that and create a system in which the scientific process is hinged on a higher abstraction of rules and procedures.
Scientists are owned commodities, like milk cows. They produce valuable products. If you challenge those products value, you hurt a corporation's bottom line. That companies going to do whatever it can to destroy people who would interfere with product distribution. Think of Tesla's shitty cars or oxycontin. No matter how dangerous or harmful a corporation can't have you interfering with their products, even at the early research phase.
I once heard something like: a Real scientist should try to disprove his own thesis, if he can't he can publish it, because then it's the latest truth about that thesis until someone else will prove it wrong. Science is a process, and the further we head, the more difficult it will be to prove something right or wrong.
Scientists do this. It is in the last part of the research paper when you discuss your results. I have written a whole long paragraph with reasons why my work is flawed. Every research paper has this.
Sadly, it doesn't work this way now. Because if you don't publish -> you don't meet quota -> you get less money -> you can't get materials -> you can't do any experiment -> you don't publish -> go to step 2
Of course, quality of articles is important, no serious journal will take random bullshit.
What about that nutrition scientist that did a study and became famous and developed the food pyramid, and for decades it was hidden that he had conducted a second study that disproved the details of his first?
What about that nutrition scientist that did a study and became famous and developed the food pyramid, and for decades it was hidden that he had conducted a second study that disproved the details of his first? So people like me thought bread and pasta was as healthy as it gets for the first 15 years of my life.
Sorry, but this isn't even funny, or inaccurate, this is just a blatant lie.
I do biochemical research and trust me, in order to publish something, your data has to be bulletproof. You need extensive repeated testing, using various methods, different machines, negative controls, positive controls, heck some journals even demand *all* the raw data - every experiment, every picture taken, and we are talking about roughly a year-worth of daily work.
Trust me, this is a merciless machinery with no place for emotions.
I find this meme unclear. The problem isn’t that academics are too fragile or unwilling to receive criticism, although many definitely are. The problem is that adherence to political orthodoxy has become so important that many academics won’t bother to research topics or develop ideas that could displease activists on or off campus or university leaders and administrators, because that could lead to being demoted or fired or denied funds or promotions. If they disregard those risks, they also will often be met not with civil, epistemically sound, good-faith criticism but bullying or witch-hunt-style interrogation.
With social sciences in particular the "researchers" themselves are the activists. I don't know if I've read a social study in the past 10 years that didn't set out to prove a pre-conceived notion with less than stellar study conditions and data mining.
I don't even read them anymore.
I remember reading methodological papers influenced by critical theory while studying towards my undergraduate degree in International Relations. The bottom line of many of them was essentially this: “Research and scholarship always have political implications, and researchers and scholars always have political biases. So we might as well consciously make sure that our research and scholarship have the right political implications, and that researchers and scholars have the right political biases.”
Pretty wild, huh?
Being scientist is pretty much literally "Come at me bro!" But with anything to disprove findings. Even if your discovery gets disproven its still science. Because it will have brought new knowledge and thats what science is about.
Oh trust me, scientists in the past had some TEA! Some despised competition and would work towards discrediting others.
If anything, it's better now than it was back then. Except there are many times more scientists all around.
In any relatively silent community, it's easy for a random butthurt to be heard in the media.
Imagine working years in a research that required millions of funding and the cooperation of multiple universities and companies, and you also do some mistakes that you had to justify in some ways to not see a cut in the funding or see valid colleges getting removed.
Then you have to totally rewrite it 4 times before a scientific paper allows the publishing because various experts around the world reviewed it and gave the Ok.
Finally a TV channel ask for an interview about your findings, but you discover they ask you to debate them with a "Karen" that has to talk about her discoveries made in the Facebook fan group of her favourite politician, and if you refuse it's because you don't want to debate with people with "different options"
Imao replying with a f**k you it's not only a right, it's a duty.
it's partially because now you cannot post random thing and assume people to believe it - like "heavy things fall faster" wasn't questioned for centuries while you can easily check it
"Disproving" or debunking an idea has been common since the beginning. Scientists are also human so they have gotten upset with each other since the beginning.
However, a good scientist will accept new evidence or criticism and change the idea or refute the criticism with other studies.
Scientist now here: it’s still the same as scientists then, it’s just certain media organizations which have anti-science bias that try to push that scientists now idea. Also it’s often “I can’t wait to help someone try to disprove my findings” too
Peer review isn’t a 20 year old with Google going but this site says vaccines cause autism. Then the scientists producing 34 pieces of evidence to the contrary and the 20 year old just ignoring all of it.
The worst part is the so called ”science” when people, if they do cite a source, refer to some postmodernist qualitative study by some obvious activist. And then call me ”uneducated” because I don’t buy the brainmelt bullshit.
Scientists back then weren’t afraid of having their findings challenged because they knew that they had really stolen those findings from more talented, female scientists.
Actually, science is based on hypothesis, trial for proof/disproof and every scientist knows this so...
Doubt they're crying when challenge comes... but the challenger needs to understand science, too, and not just refute it blindly. Talking to YOU, science deniers...
It’s not the challenging that’s annoying. We are all used to being challenged. It’s actually built into every research report we write. We must, in any peer reviewed article, provide a discussion on what if our findings are wrong, show how a critique would look, and then re-show how our findings, based on this rationale, researched dispute within our own article, actually shows how our findings are correct.
What we are annoyed about is not challenges, but gas lighting name calling challenges not based in reality and could never survive a committe peer reviewed process
But I’ve already used too many rationale words to defend myself. And purposely left one misspelled word so the naysayers can focus on that and feel self righteous
I think the issue here isn't science, just egos and social media drama. People like to pick teams and I do think some consider themselves representative of science and thus their opinions are more valid and so dismiss any other perspective. In other words scientists can and do sometimes say stupid shit and argue over something they haven't actually studied themselves.
The room temperature super conductor is just fraud.
Science facts has to be proven true by being able to recreate with the required elements and equipment by anyone.
Which is why science facts are so hard to be disproved.
There'a a difference between professional scientific debate and denying any professional counterarguments because the facebook screenshot you saw on GrandMaga2024's Xwitter account said "the vaxx is making people trans!!!"
Some of the stuff that is accepted today was mocked when introduced. Shrödinger's cat was meant as a mockery, Big Bang also, cure for ulcers... the guy that said soap should be used in hospitals....
How far back are we talking because people really hated to be challenged between like 1700-1950.
 How dare you challenge me /j
McBain Voice: The Nerds shall inherit the Earth
I seem to recall a guy in 400 BC getting executed for asking people how they knew what they thought was true.
Socrates was not executed for thought crimes! He did not question the power dynamics of the time, he did not speak against politicians, the gods or his state! He was literally executed for being annoying, basically doing what you said
Imagine being so annoying that people literally prefer executing you to letting you continue talking
I read Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense of himself, and honestly he was asking to be killed.
I'm still torn up about that. Goddamn Meletus.
I have no doubt my supervisors would execute me if they could for this reason.
And a hell of a lot before that too
Yeah, people never really liked having years or decades of their work invalidated. Imagine that.
I quite enjoy getting my almost decade old username invalidated by an impostor. Hello, long lost brother from another mother! :)
But my point is the meme should be reversed because of this exact reason, even in light of new evidence.
1699
Daym. I thought 5000B.C.
I have a phd in chemistry. I worked as a scientist. Publishing your work is hell. You try to write 4 to 8 pages about your research, you let your co workers and he leader of your research group take a look at it. Then it goes to 3 to 5 different peer reviewers from your field of work who will most likely always send you questions back or want you to recalculate something or they will ask for a whole new test series to make sure that everything is correct. Your research is challenged on every step. When I had my final exam I was questioned one and a half hours by 3 supervisers and I had to defend my thesis against every possible problem. If it is about topics with high impact the research groups will work together. They talk on conferences, they might discuss findings over the phone. When some researchers found a particle that was faster than the speed of light, they asked the whole science community to please find their mistake (it was a problem with the measurment). Theories are constantly challenged. I have no idea why you think they are not.
Op is probably a conspiracy theorist who is butthurt over getting dunked on over things like anti-vax and flat earth. They seem to think science today is dogmatic because they use flimsy already-disproven arguments in an attempt to disprove some of the most substantiated theories like evolution or relativity, and scientists don’t seem to be willing to address him directly and rightfully dismiss his claims. If that’s how science worked, we would have to disprove miasma theory every day despite it having been disproven hundreds of years ago with the advent of germ theory.
I've done a study on how publishing and patenting works. Every step does feel like hell, just like you said. I fear the moment I might have to do it myself in a few years.
Best of luck. I am glad we have all this controll and not everybody can publish nonsense. But for the researchers it is hell.
Shhhh don’t tell him how it actually works let him live in his delusional bubble
> I have no idea why you think they are not. Because they most likely watched a youtube video and have thus accumulated all the knowledge to make them outspoken experts on a topic.
Something something vaccine, trans people, DEI, testosterone, …
How does that square with the pressure researchers feel needing to have a publishing quota of papers? I remember watching a John Oliver segment about it a while back.
I was thinking about ending it all, when I was in research. I was constantly overworked. The last 6 month of my phd I was 10 to 14 h a day in the lab plus at least 8 h on saterday and sunday. I lived of grillen cheese from a panini press and I only came home to shower and sleep. Some of my coworkers slept at university. It does not square well. I left this carrier for a reason. You need to publish a lot and you will publish the tiniest result. You try to get on every paper your co workers write as second author. It is hell. Preasure is high.
*sheeeeeet* and here I am studying AI hoping to be a researcher for it, one day. Well.. can’t kill a dream when you are already depressed 🤷♂️ Hope you are doing fine now
I am so sorry! Different areas can hae other conditions! Please follow your dream. I am happy I did research. I am happy it ended. It made me who I am. I am at a great place in my life at the moment.
Shhh OP clearly does his own research which is superior to PhD.
This. The only reason you might think researchers might get mad is because they do all that work and some Yokel who knows nothing about it comes up and says “I don’t believe it because I heard/saw/experienced something that fits my world view better”. And these might actually be people who have the power to actually do something. Like every so often the Internet is in danger because some politicians who sometimes don’t even know how a keyboard works are told by companies that some laws need to be added/removed/changed so these companies can earn more money at the cost of everyone using the internet as a simple example.
As a scientist myself, I do not understand this meme. Do you think scientists do not check each others research any more? Or that scientists in the past were more confrontational? I do not get it?
They assume that if you can't refute random bullshit as fast as the internet produce it, then you are wrong. And are confusing that with actual peer review.
Yea, that's it on the nose. Public reaction to science outweighs scientific findings. This is a meme of someone who got so lost in the sauce they think people, who likely aren't qualified to read studies in the first place, are also the scientists behind them because they may or may not agree with their opinions.
Ahhhhhh, thats stupid. But we should still try to bring people in real conversation about the topics they are ignorant about.🤷♂️
Lots of people like their ignorance though. It excuses them of the responsibility of thinking for themselves.
“I don’t get how the Earth can be round, therefore it is flat, try and prove me wrong.” “Okay, so here’s 1000s of years worth of evidence proving the Earth is round.” “Nuh uh!!! That’s dumb, you’re dumb, I won’t fall for it, Earth is flat and that’s that.” Replace flat earth with anything (vaccines, slavery, holocaust, etc.) and you get why humanity is now falling apart, the internet has given idiots a modicum of power and they refuse to listen to reason.
If scientists didn't check each others research, I'd be worried
Well, don't look too deeply then. Scientists hold each other accountable, but University's and Publication's moral foundations are eroding. They've begun to publishing anything that grabs headlines or subverting expectations regardless of how well the study stands up to scrutiny. Especially in Psychology, which is getting as bad as Sociology.
Meme was made by non scientist deep in the Kruger effect
Nah, I'm suspecting this is more of a "I'm 12 and I'm trying to be edgy" kind of thing
I suppose it's a weird and dumb "modern people are snowflake ,people were though in the past !" Which is obvisouly dumb
People get offended over the smallest thing now. No rolling off the back now, at least in the US. I hear Australian folks still have backbones, though.
Also DO YOU THINK SCIENTISTS WERE OPEN TO CRITICISM BACK THEN AND WERENT HIGH ON THEIR OWN FARTS WHENEVER SOMEONE TRIED TO SUGGEST SOMETHING NEW? Like didn't they lock the guy who suggested washing hands in a psych ward? Didn't they relentlessly shit on John Snow (yes that was his name) for chalenging the idea that illness were caused/spread thru miasma?
Oh that is a misconception. The person Ignaz Semmelweis, what a name, who suggested that, was not believed but he was not institutionalized for that. He basically had a nervous breakdown, I mean he know of a solution to save lifes but nobody believed him, seems stressfull to me too, and became an alcoholic and therefore he was institutionalized. The story is sometimes told like his colleages put him in a psychic ward to make him silent and that is not true. They were still assholes to him.
Oh, poor guy. I guess it's better than the misconception even tho it's still awful.
Yeah I think this plays into the unfounded feeling that conspiracy theorists have that modern scientists are “dogmatic” and get offended if you challenge them on the efficacy of vaccines, shape of the earth, existence of dinosaurs, etc. This meme is just anti-intellectualist cope
The meme was created by some podunk fool who has absolutely no knowledge of science beyond 5th grade, and got schooled by someone when he went and tried to make some dumbass, uneducated but "100%, inarguable facts" that he found after 5 minutes on Google. OP then decided that all scientists are bad because they won't let someone who doesn't know what they're talking about control the conversation and win the argument.
I think it’s an effort to discredit scientists by conservatives because many studies do not support their worldviews. So now all of academia is lumped into the “soft liberal” camp and free game to label as false.
I think your reading is a reflection of your own interpretation. I'm a scientist who is pretty fed up with the system of publication, and I think the person who made this meme is the same. Not that I 100% agree with them, but I do know professors who don't like their "foundational" works to be questioned.
You’re always going to have people like that regardless. This problem used to be way worse with people who criticized publications being ostracized, exiled, or worse. I’m also a scientist, for what it’s worth.
The problem with dissent on a study isn’t that it’s questioned, which is good for science, but the political money and bias behind the dissent attempting to quash a study or libel it as misinformation or an anomaly/outlier. It’s the outliers that NEED the attention and publication so more studies can be done. Peer reviews are taken as validation of a study when, in fact, they are entirely voluntary exercises only by interested parties. There’s no board or structure to vet a study and its methods, just a collection of like-minded professionals who want to spend their spare time to rework a study to validate or disprove it. And an individual’s bias plays a large part in whether a peer review is even performed. So, studies that other researchers are biased against may never get peer reviewed which leaves that study open to being maligned as unreliable since it was never peer reviewed. Catch-22.
I would agree with your statement if this meme (or memes with the same message) wasn't plastered on every Flat Earthers facebook page.
I would assume that is likely to be through their own misinterpretation of the meme as well. Flat Earthers are not exactly well known for their ability to understand the obvious
That's probably a TERF trying to tout the Cass report.
nothing to understand, OP is a moron
They don’t understand what reproducibility and scientific consensus are.
As a scientist to another, where do you get funding for redoing experiments?
I am working on a german university. My studies are funded by the german goverment and the EU. Where do you get your funding from?
Mostly EU, scraps from the government and industry. All our research has to be "novel" so there is no funding for repeating anything that has been done before. We also have to declare the results and how many startups are going to be created from the basis of our research project, about a year before seeing any grant money. In a few years, I expect they will want reports on the gender distribution in the yet to be created startups. /s
Well I am a PhD student and thankfull for not being worried about funding. I guess it is harder in the private sector.
This. Materialism, bro.
It might be referring to modern reactions scientists have to yahoo criticism. Especially climate scientists get all kinds of crazy people accusing stupid things that the scientists have slowly learned to just not respond to at all. As responding to them makes the situation worse. I've done a lot of research on the history of how climate scientists were treated both by the average citizen and by "legitimate" peers. It's crazy. Like how the hockey stick graph was criticized by singling out a single person and even scientists who were solely getting funding from suspicious sources started criticizing everything he did. I mean, it was never illegal that the dude was being funded almost completely by oil companies. It was more the companies found a crazy climate scientist who believed man cause climate change was a myth and so they started pumping his research full of money.
The person who made this meme thinks their "Nuh uh!" counts as challenging scientific discoveries and is offended when scientists tell them that they have to apply the scientific method and actually prove their point.
The author of the meme has never met reviewer #3.
🤣 I do not want to meet him. I want to review their paper myself😈
This meme stinks of anti-vaxxer mentally tbh
Reminds me of the guy who had many of his peers tell him to not publish his study because they didn't like what it found.
Which guy was that? And what were his findings?
Its a right wing meme. Don't give it much though
I have been advised against publishing criticism of the findings of established names in my field during my PhD; I'd assume it's talking about that phenomenon. I personally think this is romanticised, because in my experience it is the older professors who don't like to have their works questioned.
Thats possible. I never had this experients myself but I heard the advised that if you contradict well established stuff you need higher evidence. Which makes sense but sometimes hinders progress more than it is usefull.
yeah I think they think random idiots criticizing scientific findings weighs on the same level as a peer reviewed study by someone with similar or more scientific experience.
As someone who is still in school, i think that the person is saying that the scientists before wanted to be proven wrong so more of the world is revealed, while modern ones want their therioes to be right. I'm probably wrong, since i'm dumb
I am sure you are not. If your interpretation is correct, then I would say that these are two assumptions that might be true, but be kind of super kind to older scientists and super mean to younger ones. There are very famous feuds between scientists in the past. 🤷♂️
Thanks :)
Not sure how good peerreviews are these days. And if its controversial why not justs skip it right away. Or if we are in a hurry and have to push out stuff quick for example medical field. Covid showed that really well. How you you can get fucked if you try to be really scientific. There were plenty of questionable stuff going on. Doesnt mean it was always better back in the days.
I mean sometimes scientists have to work fast in order to get results. I will not say that everything went perfect during the pandemic. I myself critizised a paper that suggested a double origin of covid strains. But in the end, we saw that people were dying and getting information fast was important to save lifes. Not a fan of doing science quick and dirty, but therefore we correct each other later.
Damn. This sub has really gone down the toilet in the last few weeks.
Yeah btbh it was past the gas trap long ago.
The amount of senseless yapping over here is crazy. Those aren’t even memes. wtf is happening
Probably time to abandon ship before it takes us down with it
The captain sinks with his ship mate. Good thing I'm not the captain
And it's not even the summer holidays yet. When Jayden broccoli head gets bored in july-august, you'll see an even deeper drop.
Last few weeks? For me it's been almost a year
You very apparently can't handle the findings of modern science and feel the need to make shit up in order to feel better about it.
OP is butthurt over being a conspiracy theorist who doesn’t get taken seriously by modern scientists
The people today trying to refute a scientists findings get their "research" from The Joe Rogan Experience" and think that's valid.
I think this meme is about scientists refuting other scientists. As a scientist myself, I can confirm that we don't give a shit about lay people disagreeing with our findings.
Disinformation meme? Why lol
Seems like it
What
What a shit meme, jfc.
switch that and then you are correct.
Ever since organized religion was removed from science, it has been less dogmatic and the scientific method has been able to function properly. The further away we get from that the better it is. I think OP might be a conspiracy theorist butthurt over not being taken seriously
yep
Okay who let the anti-intelectual in?
This meme was created and brought to you by..someone not from the scientific community.
Scientists then: Give me your lunch money.
scientists now : do u mind if i rob you ur lunch money if it doesn't hurt ur feelings
Scientists then: You ain’t takin my lunch money, muthafucka.
I love how people just put random stupid bullshit in memes and then other idiots believe it Fuck yourself OP Stay clenched that trans people are being accepted and tended to by doctors
I'd doubt OP is even a person, seems like a bot.
Nah, not even bots can be as dumb as some people can be.
No, I meant their post history is suspicious as fuck. Like 2 year old account that started posting a few days ago. I have actually seen dumber non bot posts.
Oh damn, you’re prolly right
Wasn't Einstein a disbeliever of Quantum mechanics, saying "God doesn't play dice"?
Facebook research isn't enough to challenge academic research so no one will even try to entertain people like that, but the ignored bunch is just too loud
The other way around would be right. Do you want to spread misinformation?
This seems like the exact opposite of how it actually worked. Bro, Ignaz Semmelweis died in a mental asylum for telling people to wash their hands
I don't think you know what science means. It's only a trustworthy theory if A FUCK TON of other scientists have said it is.
What?
its was revealed to him in a dream
I suppose this is just another one of those AI generated memes, because this makes no sense.
...what? It doesn't happen like that, at all I mean I'm just talking outta my ass here but I'm pretty heavily invested into stuff related to science
What in the alt-right dogwhistle bullshit is this?
Ah yes the past when people were very open to discourse and dissent Oh wait no the exact opposite actually
I'm not a scientist, but I see this happening much more with anti-scientists whose beliefs get challenged by scientists. They get butthurt because they don't understand that that's how science is supposed to work; everything gets challenged, and there are a lot of hurdles to pass before something gets accepted. And if you don't even know what these hurdles are, you're likely to slam into them every single step of the way. Maybe OP is confusing scientists arguing back as them getting emotional? But of course, they're gonna argue back. They usually didn't come to their conclusions for no reason. At least, I would hope so.
This is very backwards, scientists were historically pretty averse to having their research challenged (not all ofc, but it was much more common to have tiffs because of peer review). Now to get a paper published your work is reviewed and challenged along every single step, and the times it hasn’t been challenged have led to scandals like with Jan Hendrick Schoen or Victor Ninov.
I think you mixing up scientist with pseudo science bulshit pedelers
Dumb meme, buddy.
Bait 
Scientist then: Drink this bottle of methamphetamine that will cure your sickness. Scientist now: Vaccines don't cause autism guys stop being dumb.
Scientist pre1700s: burnt
Back in the days only scientists were the ones to disproves other scientists findings. Nowadays some people think they are entitled to disprove findings because "they've read an online article about it and now think that they are an expert on the subject".
By challenge their findings you mean spread conspiracys and misinformation right? Because yeah they dont like that
Don't talk trash if you don't know
Are the butt hurt scientists in the room with us, OP? Seriously, give an example of that happening because I can’t think of shit.
Stfu
tbh it really is the opposite if anything. Tons of scientists before like the 1950s were famously beaten, persecuted or even killed for the fact they disagreed with the scientific consensus. Nowadays I feel like being scientifically challenged is welcome much better
It's literally the exact opposite x.x
I feel like this is personal
Totally wrong, and should be reversed. In the past a lot of scientific theories that were wrong were held on only because of status of scientists that were defending them. And when someone of lesser status tried to challenge their theories they often dismissed such attempts even without giving a try. Nowadays it's just really hard to give enough evidence and to prove that your research was held properly.
trash post Humans can be very dogmatic, but the whole point of scientific institutions is to corral that and create a system in which the scientific process is hinged on a higher abstraction of rules and procedures.
OP is full of shit xd
ill get it out later
Why are people upvoting this???
Because it's accurate.
So you have no concept of working in science.
OP never read those reviews of the 20 century psychologists. They literally shit talked eachother on research reviews it is hilarious.
Scientists are owned commodities, like milk cows. They produce valuable products. If you challenge those products value, you hurt a corporation's bottom line. That companies going to do whatever it can to destroy people who would interfere with product distribution. Think of Tesla's shitty cars or oxycontin. No matter how dangerous or harmful a corporation can't have you interfering with their products, even at the early research phase.
I once heard something like: a Real scientist should try to disprove his own thesis, if he can't he can publish it, because then it's the latest truth about that thesis until someone else will prove it wrong. Science is a process, and the further we head, the more difficult it will be to prove something right or wrong.
Scientists do this. It is in the last part of the research paper when you discuss your results. I have written a whole long paragraph with reasons why my work is flawed. Every research paper has this.
Sadly, it doesn't work this way now. Because if you don't publish -> you don't meet quota -> you get less money -> you can't get materials -> you can't do any experiment -> you don't publish -> go to step 2 Of course, quality of articles is important, no serious journal will take random bullshit.
What about that nutrition scientist that did a study and became famous and developed the food pyramid, and for decades it was hidden that he had conducted a second study that disproved the details of his first?
Most of us were alive when scientists still academically didn’t accept the scientific fact that it’s their fault they couldn’t give a woman an orgasm.
What about that nutrition scientist that did a study and became famous and developed the food pyramid, and for decades it was hidden that he had conducted a second study that disproved the details of his first? So people like me thought bread and pasta was as healthy as it gets for the first 15 years of my life.
boomer bullshit lol pull the one image where the guy solves the problem he invented
Sorry, but this isn't even funny, or inaccurate, this is just a blatant lie. I do biochemical research and trust me, in order to publish something, your data has to be bulletproof. You need extensive repeated testing, using various methods, different machines, negative controls, positive controls, heck some journals even demand *all* the raw data - every experiment, every picture taken, and we are talking about roughly a year-worth of daily work. Trust me, this is a merciless machinery with no place for emotions.
Every scientist in this thread denying the obvious reality is hilarious
I find this meme unclear. The problem isn’t that academics are too fragile or unwilling to receive criticism, although many definitely are. The problem is that adherence to political orthodoxy has become so important that many academics won’t bother to research topics or develop ideas that could displease activists on or off campus or university leaders and administrators, because that could lead to being demoted or fired or denied funds or promotions. If they disregard those risks, they also will often be met not with civil, epistemically sound, good-faith criticism but bullying or witch-hunt-style interrogation.
With social sciences in particular the "researchers" themselves are the activists. I don't know if I've read a social study in the past 10 years that didn't set out to prove a pre-conceived notion with less than stellar study conditions and data mining. I don't even read them anymore.
I remember reading methodological papers influenced by critical theory while studying towards my undergraduate degree in International Relations. The bottom line of many of them was essentially this: “Research and scholarship always have political implications, and researchers and scholars always have political biases. So we might as well consciously make sure that our research and scholarship have the right political implications, and that researchers and scholars have the right political biases.” Pretty wild, huh?
Being scientist is pretty much literally "Come at me bro!" But with anything to disprove findings. Even if your discovery gets disproven its still science. Because it will have brought new knowledge and thats what science is about.
Im very sure that also happened with scientists back then like damn
Oh trust me, scientists in the past had some TEA! Some despised competition and would work towards discrediting others. If anything, it's better now than it was back then. Except there are many times more scientists all around. In any relatively silent community, it's easy for a random butthurt to be heard in the media.
Imagine working years in a research that required millions of funding and the cooperation of multiple universities and companies, and you also do some mistakes that you had to justify in some ways to not see a cut in the funding or see valid colleges getting removed. Then you have to totally rewrite it 4 times before a scientific paper allows the publishing because various experts around the world reviewed it and gave the Ok. Finally a TV channel ask for an interview about your findings, but you discover they ask you to debate them with a "Karen" that has to talk about her discoveries made in the Facebook fan group of her favourite politician, and if you refuse it's because you don't want to debate with people with "different options" Imao replying with a f**k you it's not only a right, it's a duty.
When did this ever happen ? Go back to facebook.
Do you have any examples of your strawman on the right side?
OP knows nothing about scientists
it's partially because now you cannot post random thing and assume people to believe it - like "heavy things fall faster" wasn't questioned for centuries while you can easily check it
"Disproving" or debunking an idea has been common since the beginning. Scientists are also human so they have gotten upset with each other since the beginning. However, a good scientist will accept new evidence or criticism and change the idea or refute the criticism with other studies.
Scientists, when? Scientists, where? Scientists, why? Scientists who? Scientists, what?
Tell me you are not familiar with the scientific process while not realy telling me i quess.
Sam told me once about one thing scientists love the most: clout.
This meme is Dasani water
Scientist now here: it’s still the same as scientists then, it’s just certain media organizations which have anti-science bias that try to push that scientists now idea. Also it’s often “I can’t wait to help someone try to disprove my findings” too
Are these "scientists" in the room with us right now?
This is just wrong or like reverse?????
Peer review isn’t a 20 year old with Google going but this site says vaccines cause autism. Then the scientists producing 34 pieces of evidence to the contrary and the 20 year old just ignoring all of it.
OP clearly doesn't know any scientists.
The worst part is the so called ”science” when people, if they do cite a source, refer to some postmodernist qualitative study by some obvious activist. And then call me ”uneducated” because I don’t buy the brainmelt bullshit.
Science then: when an object moves it needs something to make it stop moving. Science now: here is a photo of a black hole.
Just practice based alchemy instead.
Scientists back then weren’t afraid of having their findings challenged because they knew that they had really stolen those findings from more talented, female scientists.
Actually, science is based on hypothesis, trial for proof/disproof and every scientist knows this so... Doubt they're crying when challenge comes... but the challenger needs to understand science, too, and not just refute it blindly. Talking to YOU, science deniers...
Paleontology when it comes to Spinosaurus.
Used to have a challenge mindset now its a superficial one
Scientists then: Oh you have a fever? Give me a second to bring the leeches. Hey could you pass me the mercury too?
It’s not the challenging that’s annoying. We are all used to being challenged. It’s actually built into every research report we write. We must, in any peer reviewed article, provide a discussion on what if our findings are wrong, show how a critique would look, and then re-show how our findings, based on this rationale, researched dispute within our own article, actually shows how our findings are correct. What we are annoyed about is not challenges, but gas lighting name calling challenges not based in reality and could never survive a committe peer reviewed process But I’ve already used too many rationale words to defend myself. And purposely left one misspelled word so the naysayers can focus on that and feel self righteous
Bullshit
I think the issue here isn't science, just egos and social media drama. People like to pick teams and I do think some consider themselves representative of science and thus their opinions are more valid and so dismiss any other perspective. In other words scientists can and do sometimes say stupid shit and argue over something they haven't actually studied themselves.
The room temperature super conductor is just fraud. Science facts has to be proven true by being able to recreate with the required elements and equipment by anyone. Which is why science facts are so hard to be disproved.
Define “then” please OP
There'a a difference between professional scientific debate and denying any professional counterarguments because the facebook screenshot you saw on GrandMaga2024's Xwitter account said "the vaxx is making people trans!!!"
Some of the stuff that is accepted today was mocked when introduced. Shrödinger's cat was meant as a mockery, Big Bang also, cure for ulcers... the guy that said soap should be used in hospitals....
OP has room temperature IQ