this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
841 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

235 readers
79 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
 
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Juice@midwest.social 43 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The Elephant and Mice episode was so wild, because if I remember correctly, the elephant didn't act afraid of the mouse, it acted afraid it would step on and harm the mouse; as if the elephant had a basic understanding and concern for the wellbeing of another creature conspicuously lacking in many human beasts

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago

It's amazing how intelligent and emotionally mature elephants are. It's not wonder why people were willing to believe that "Elephants have a moon religion!" line for so long, it seems believable with how often elephants seem to act like chonky humans with a trunk instead of arms.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 5 months ago (2 children)

For anyone missing the show, there was a wonderful project called Streamlined Mythbusters where fans edited each episode down to remove the filler, pre and post ad recaps, etc. They usually also would reorder things so each individual myth was seld contained.

It's wonderful, but some episodes legitimately got cut down to be 16 minutes long with no real content loss, which can be kind of jarring.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

Oh god, I forgot, it was during the "REALITY TV!" boom where marketing and hype had more substance than the shows themselves, and if the show had substance.... edit it like it is Reality TV...

I do not miss that.

[–] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago

Thanks for the Rec! I definitely miss the show. Adam's YouTube channel sometimes scratches the itch, but not always.

[–] ShaunaTheDead@fedia.io 32 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Being excited about being wrong because either way it's information

This literally is the basis of science that I think a lot of people misunderstand. Science doesn't prove anything conclusively. What scientists try to do is disprove the leading theory and when they can't, it adds to the pile of evidence that increases the likelyhood of the leading theory being correct. Even things that we're very, very, very sure are correct are still like 99.99999999999...% confirmed.

A good example that's often used to show how it's more important to try to disprove a theory rather than trying to prove it is the existence of black swans. It was long thought that all swans were white and every time someone saw a white swan, that idea was reinforced. But when someone actually went out of their way to go looking for a black swan, they found a bunch of them!

[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago

I feel it is my pedantic duty to inform you that 99.9... is equal to 100.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 27 points 5 months ago

This is why most skepticism based programs don't work, and Mythbusters did.

They didn't try to be smug about it, they didn't belittle people who believed in the myths, they never brought religion and politics into it, and the biggest pitfall they avoided: They never pretended that the "science was settled" and that they "already knew everything", they simply did the research and went where the data took them.

Too many skepticism based programs seem to think the scientific method is running into a church, yelling "FAKE!", and then running outside to hurl insults at passersby.

Mythbusters didn't do that, they skipped the dogma and went straight to the science.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 19 points 5 months ago

I would say escaping from quick sand and escaping from an alligator chasing me were two major concerns in my childhood. LoL, global climate change was maybe not even on the list, for which I will curse the petroleum industry.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 18 points 5 months ago

Remember kids: The difference between science and screwing around is writing things down.

[–] ElderberryLow@programming.dev 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I loved their episode where they made a led balloon.

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 months ago

Surprise origami!

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The last comments in the image are exactly right.

It bothers me when I screw up and someone says "I fixed that for you" without explaining how I screwed things up, or how they fixed it.

If I'm wrong, I get it. I'm not always right, nobody can be right 100% of the time, IMO, that's impossible. But when I'm wrong, let me learn so I can avoid being wrong in the same way twice.

IMO, schools have failed us, they teach us what we should know but don't encourage us to always be curious and always be learning. It's okay to make mistakes, and it's okay to be wrong. What's not okay is never learning from your mistakes, and being so stubborn that when you are wrong, you double down on being wrong instead of seeking more information so you can be correct next time.

Being wrong is always condemned. You get low grades, you fail and get held back in some cases.... It's been rare that any teacher I've ever had would review anything from a test after its over. A very small number went back and said "a lot of people had trouble with x question from the test, here's the answer and this is why it's the correct answer". IMO, that should be way more common.... Review the test after its over and let the class know that low marks are not the end, they're a wonderful beginning to learning. If you know what you don't know and you have even the smallest amount of ability and willingness to improve, with the addition of opportunities to learn that, then you will always succeed.

Be successful. Get a bunch of shit wrong.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

I only had time to read a few paragraphs, but yeah. That's a good one.

I'll try to return to this and finish this reading.

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 12 points 5 months ago

It make me really sad when I learned that James and Adam were not friend.

James said their relationship doesn't really extend beyond the show.

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My fav was if you could shoot someone in water. Turns out that just 3 ft. of water was enough to stop a 50 cal! So as great of a film as Saving Private Ryan was, the opening scene where bullets wiz thru the sea killing soldiers was pure fiction.

[–] zeekaran@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago

True, but smaller arms go further so scenes line the early betrayal in Italian Job were life threatening.

All supersonic bullets (up to .50-caliber) disintegrated in less than 3 feet (90 cm) of water, but slower velocity bullets, like pistol rounds, need up to 8 feet (2.4 m) of water to slow to non-lethal speeds. Shotgun slugs require even more depth (the exact depth couldn’t be determined because their one test broke the rig). However, as most water-bound shots are fired from an angle, less actual depth is needed to create the necessary separation.

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago

Boom De Yada: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0

(for some nostalgic Discovery vibes)

[–] fossphi@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes there's a twitch stream of random mythbusters episodes. It's so fun.

I wish they came back :/

[–] rolaulten@startrek.website 6 points 5 months ago

We need less entertainment that runs forever and more that has a plan for how long it should be.

In this case it ran as long as it was feasible, then a little longer and then they where done.

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.one 7 points 5 months ago

MythBusters will always and forever be a treasure.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Kind of related but there was a video on StarTalk a couple days ago on NGT rebutting a Joe Rogan interview with Terrence Howard. It's was joyous watching a breakdown in how science works while very politely calling TH an absolute moron.

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He even went out of his way to compliment the ridiculous amount of work Howard put in, and his art etc. Dude should consider it a win to even get a red marked up paper back from an actual respected scientist. That in itself is a pretty cool achievement.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

I have never seen so many ways for a smart person to call someone a moron than I did in this video. I wish there were more examples to revel in

[–] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 5 months ago

Curiosity is the best trait nature ever gave us.

[–] hipsterdoofus@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I miss Mythbusters. These days, the closest thing is Maker youtube channels like Failed Mythbuster Allen Pan, Simone Gertz, William Osman, StyroPyro, ElectroBoom, Stuff Made Here.

[–] jherazob 2 points 5 months ago

Then there's Michael Reeves to represent the chaos goblin contingent...

[–] Mountain_Mike_420@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

That and writing down results.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 4 points 4 months ago

Just because no one else has said, Adam has been involved in EFF for a long time. EEF Podcast episode with him in it:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/podcast-episode-making-hope-adam-savage

Which delights me as he's more mainstream and so wakes people up to things like the Right To Repair movement.

[–] WiseThat@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

This is what conspiracy theorists don't get. The world's scientists are not skeptical of your claims that water has secret spiritual memory because they hate you, they are skeptical because the claim you make, if it were true, would be so important and world-changing that they want to be absolutely sure of it before they endorse it.

The difference is that, to a scientist, "this would be amazing if it were true" is not a good reason to believe it anyway

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

You mean the laundry detergent commercial?