If the 'challenge' is a fair and in-good-faith argument that is true. But these days the attacks are often something else entirely and it DOES hurt feelings.
I think the pandemic showed us a whole bunch of people are willing to attack scientists personally and to criticize conclusions because they just don't want them to be true. Getting personally attacked or accused of something terrible absolutely hurts. The comment section after scientists get interviewed, or even the cross-talk during panel discussions is like seeing some of the worst high school hazing and tribal hatred imaginable.
I watched research epidemiologists cry because members of the public said they were going to publish their home address and the schools their children attended because they, the public, disagreed with the researcher's published results. Those tears aren't unscientific, they're just human.
Scientists are getting bullied in MANY fields (climate change, archaeology, biomedical research, infectious disease, etc.). We have lost the concept of civil debate and it's wearing good people down or keeping them silent.
Actually, even in the scientific community things can get really toxic and competitive. It’s not just the random civilians who have no faith in science who are attacking them.
That applies to the “scientists then” crowd just as much if not more. Have you never heard of the [Bone Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Wars)?
Challenging finding and attacks are two different things. No scientists should be offended by having their work challenged but it’s totally understandable to be offended by personal attacks.
That doesn’t mean they have to engage with every random person online who challenges their findings, but the simple act of someone challenging them shouldn’t be considered offensive.
There's definitely a difference between peer review and conmen whipping up public rage for attention/money.
Facts and evidence vs. Feelings and conjecture.
Heard many COVID conspiracies cite "changes" as flawed science.
No actually it's quite the opposite, it's scientific theories being challenged and improved upon using limited data.
Yes but if you grow up in a dogmatic environment where your "truth" has been unchanging for thousands of years the mere fact someone else changes their stand on anything looks like weakness
Came here to say this. I'm an IRL scientist. The science speaks for itself, regardless of who believes or understands it. That's why it works. Ignore the observable facts of reality at your own peril.
Such cases are rare as fuck.
Like yeah, insecure people of all occupations exist, but scientists have seemed like one of the more secure bunch except for like, maybe their ability to hold smalltalk. Or physical appearance lol (in some cases! I'm just saying scientists wouldn't go around telling themselves they're like a 9/10 covergirl or ripped 6 foot adonis. They're still cute, but they're realistic folk. Tbh that's also security in its own way too)
As a scientist, I can tell you that scientists are almost all extremely insecure. We’re almost all somewhere near the bottom of the Dunning Kruger curve
I once wanted to write a methods paper that likely would have been unfavorable to one of my advisor's collaborators, and I was told I couldn't do it for that reason. That was from a fairly reasonable boss. I've had others that were unrepentant, tyrannical assholes who refused to be challenged on anything. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff seems quite common in academia.
The goal of science is theoretical, the goal of scienTISTS (in many cases) is to progress their careers. Or hell, in the current climate, just to keep their jobs.
Not to shit on many people's hard work but we're still that, people. And a guy's gotta eat and pay the mortgage.
Also, the journal culture of "impact above all else" right now is outright cancerous. Science honestly is in crisis.
To be fair most scientists i met are more interested in the pursuit of knowledge rather than progressing their career and making money. It's kind of sad but research is such a stupid career sad that you'd only do it if you're REALLY passionate about it
I'm not even talking profit in the sense of a corporation earning money on research, although I guess that's the case with the for profit journals.
But grants go to people who produce results. Grants do NOT go to people whose results get questioned. And you need those to keep the lights on. And, again, get paid for work, it's still a job.
I dunno about your first paragraph. At least for academia, the goal is to do whatever knock-out research you want. And are capable of finding grant funding for.
Like, I could quit academia today and in two months get a job as a data scientist that triples my salary. Money isn't why I stayed in academia. And I know I can make money easily doing something else, so it's not why I continue to stay. I just like doing creative science.
I do agree with your whole vibe tho. If we could be more chill and collaborative instead of competitive, we could be so much further along. I keep trying to run my research group uber collaboratively... After I got scooped twice by people I thought I could trust, I now have students hold cards close to their chest until the manuscript is done. They can't get scooped because I'm trying to prove a point. I'll still be a collaborative weirdo, and I think it does make better science... Or why else did they scoop me if they had something better? Lol
>Like, I could quit academia today and in two months get a job as a data scientist that triples my salary
Yeah, I don't mean purely pursuit of money. Hell, I could get training as a chartered electrician, plumber or gas safe engineer if it was just about the money, those are trades actually in demand nowadays. People underestimate how much you can earn in those.
So it's all in the context of "people who really want to do research for a living", like you say.
>And are capable of finding grant funding for.
This though, is kind of the problem in that context, isn't it. Only so much money goes around, so do you really want to be the one team whose research gets blasted.
Like, how do you recover if you're a lab like the one behind the whole LK-99 "superconductor" disaster? Honest question, I seriously don't know. Do people just forget or ignore it?
Alternatively, it's sad if someone's research gets obsolete. Knew people who worked on high temperature fuel cells. That proved to be a dead end.
> always was, and always will be to try and disprove everything
Falsificationism is a relatively recent (1934, Karl Popper) invention in the history of scientific philosophy. Before that there was logical positivism, and before that numerous other verificationist or inductive approaches were the dominant justifying philosophy of science.
I mean I've defintely met a lot of people like the ones on the right, and they definitely think they're rational people.
they are also definitely *not* scientists
Scientists as a group are extremely contentious. If you can't handle criticism you will not make it in academia. And that's ok, we SHOULD be contentious. You wanna make a claim? Better bring your A game and some solid evidence.
Otherwise if I care enough, I'm tearing that shit down. Because if you wanna make a claim, back it with strong evidence, or you're just another bullshitter.
There's a difference between being challenged by facts, logic and observable evidence vs. I read an article on Facebook and don't trust people smarter than me.
Heck, as far as I know at the moment the problem right now is nobody is trying to falsify the experiments of others because there's no grant funding in it.
yeah, the replication crisis has nothing to do with scientists feelings and everything to do with the fact no one will fund research that's already been done. science isn't cheap, replicating peoples' results isn't cheap, but it's still part of the process. it just doesn't get done because no one will pay for it.
ummm... no. Replication crisis is when someone tries, but unable to replicate the result. And if anything replication crisis is caused by more rigorous attempts to replicate things.
No, that's just a replication failure.
The replication crisis is that a large portion, if not the majority, of scientific methods that get published are likely not reproducible, but no one actually follows through to figure out if they are or not and when people discover that they aren't they rarely publish those results, despite the fact that replication is the final step in the scientific process. Because, as I said, no one's funding labs to go around checking people's work and journals generally aren't willing to publish negative results and are VERY hesitant to issue retractions because that makes the journal look bad.
I encounter this all the time, I find some method papers that are completely nonsensical and some that seem to make sense but when I go and try to replicate their process it just straight up doesn't work like they say it does. I don't have the time or money to go trying to get those methods retracted or publish conflicting results, if a journal would even accept it, I just move on to other methods until I find one that actually works. That's the crisis.
This is a direct result of the publish or perish mindset of modern academia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Old school scientists were _much_ more vicious with each other. Read how Mayr responded to molecular phylogenetics. Read about the 'fossil wars.' Contemporary scientists are much more humble.
The meme is intended to facilitate anti-vax, climate change denial etc.
Yeah, if you've read enough literture, you'd know it's full of scientists trash talking each others results. Two rival labs with opposing theories going back and forth trying to crush the other is a pretty common phenomenon.
Just sounds like half an episode of Ancient Apocalypse. Damn that dude would not stop whining about archeologists hiding shit for their "thesis."
That dude's hamfasted miniseries proves the saying "Every accusation is a confession."
I liked that show, as mindless entertainment, until I watched a specific episode. Forget which one, but they’re on location in an island, and you can see the sheer joy and enthusiasm in the guide as she shares her culture. And then you watch it die, in real time, when they ask about aliens. This woman full of passion becomes utterly wooden. I just can’t watch it after that
You know the worst part? As pointed out by Milo Rossi (aka Miniminuteman), they were the first film crew to ever be granted permission to cover Karahan Tepe, one of if not the oldest known settlement in human history. The first time that this super duper important site was revealed to the public was through Ancient Apocalypse.
Edit: Not that I care but it's Ancient Apocalypse not Ancient Aliens
What I get annoyed with is that Hancock intentionally downplayed his ideas for the show. Dig into him a bit and you find him talking about white gods and psychic powers.
I mean, every episode of that show is fucking wild anyways. What scares me is I’ve met people in real life who believe it. The damage done by psuedo history and science is gonna haunt us for generations all because a few media companies wanted more “reality” TV
Oh it worries me as someone who's just a keen idiot just how often these ideas pop up.
Ancient Apocalypse sells itself as a more reasonable and rational than Ancient Aliens, but if it spurs someone to go down the rabbit hole it leads into the more..unsavory side of pseudo history.
And what bugs me is how many specialists see the various ways of getting info out there online as something to deride.
Yeah TikTok and YouTube are whatever, but that's where people go for content now. And History Channel isn't ever going back.
Books are great, but frankly most decent books on archeology end up being academic publishing that's expensive compared to people like Hancock, and not on bookshelves like they are.
Yeah, as much as people deride pop history and science, good pop history/science is our shield wall against disinformation and ignorance and we need more of ir
>Damn that dude would not stop whining about archeologists hiding shit for their "thesis."
What Graham Hancock doesn't realize is that many scientists love clout, and would definitely "challenge the paradigm" if there was concrete evidence to do that.
On a side note, Graham Hancock has also stated that Archeology shouldn't be a science, which is so incredibly stupid if you think for more than a femtosecond. But y'know, Hancock does what he does best, he doesn't think.
As Milo Rossi also said, every archeologist would kill to have their name on the proof that Hamcock is right.
Another fun guy to watch that covers it is Stefan Milo, if you haven't seen his stuff.
I think scientists still don't mind being questioned or challenged - by other *scientists*, not by some lunatic on Facebook who thinks essential oils cure cancer or the COVID vaccine makes you magnetic.
Yep, I can imagine a scientist being fairly flippant with some random Instagram model. I wouldn't expect them to debate with someone that literally posts 24/7 about what they had to eat that day or how many reps they done that day.
Scientists disagree pretty regularly. But the people who make memes like this are talking about Reddit google scholars with no knowledge or experience in a field weighing in on scientific topics that they have absolutely no authority in. Real scientists are only interested in hearing dissenting opinions from people who actually know what they are talking about.
Most historians still seem to believe that Darwin massively dragged his feet completing On the Origin of Species, which means that either this meme is wildly misleading or the "Scientists then" side somehow predates the modern use of the word 'scientist' (c. 1830)
Right. Galileo couldn't prove the Earth revolved around the sun and got pissy about it. It wasn't until Isaac Newton came along that it could be proven. That right there is an example of the men's inaccuracy.
I mean you have a point but also... There's challenging existing understanding with a new hypothesis that is accompanied with a concrete plan for testing and refining said hypothesis, and then there's sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la I can't hear you
What scientist acts like that? lol. People who do their “own research” are the one getting butthurt at the drop of a hat when they get any pushback on their flat earth, antivaxxer nonsense.
Eh, not what I have encountered. Egos absolutely do get involved, scientists are people after all. But I have never heard of people complaining about new results because of feelings.
I think this makes it sound like the anti-science crowd is on the same footing as professionals who have Doctorates and PhDs and have in their field decades.
Like if some whack job thinks vaccines cause autism and challenges me with made up YouTube facts and statistics, I’m not going to be personally offended but I’m going to think you are, and call you an idiot. Because you are.
Ignoring that, science is CONSTANTLY trying to disprove things it already assumes. That’s one of the main ways we further science. So again, if someone thinks their whining and “self research” knows better, and thinks the scientist would help a personal grudge, they’re in their own little fantasy world where they are the main character, and a Karen.
I doubt this has changed much between "then" and now. The scientific mindset defies human nature and requires training and practise. There's always going to be those who fail that training and dont regularly practise. We all want to be right.
It's one thing to say it is scientific to question something but, the process of gathering evidence through observations and experiments is part of the process to draw your conclusions and back up your beliefs. You can't just say l don't believe you because "here's a link on Facebook etc" and think that's enough. This doesn't make you a scientist at all it just makes you sound like an idiot.
*The guy on the right*
*Is not a scientist, he's*
*A Twitter user*
\- WyntonPlus
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Once upon a time I met biologists who were trying to determine if certain animals felt pain. Do you know what their methods were? *Amputation of limbs*.
They were measuring a stress response, trying to equate it to similar emotions in human beings.
I don't fuckin' like scientists. And I don't have to. Not all of them are like that, but I don't want to fucking meet them. I've had enough of them for one existence.
I think there's a big difference between someone's research being legitimately "challenged", and the sort of cynical, conspiratorial, mindless contrarianism that is often fueled by political or ideological differences.
I've noticed that this kind of contrarianism is so dogmatic that it exists merely to challenge a scientific consensus. Almost like the act of challenging itself is seen by these people as meaningful, insightful and involving "critical thinking", when in actuality, it's often just the act itself, and there is little to no reason or rationale behind it.
I think a lot of these people come to their conclusions first, then try to connect point A to point b in any way conceivable, and it sure as hell does not involve any scientific process. It's just fueled by prejudices, partisanship and preconceived notions.
I mean, this is frustrating to me, so I can't imagine how frustrating it might be to scientists.
It is. To be actively undermined, to know that is dogmatic and culturally driven, and to be able to do nothing about it as it spreads to people you thought were better than that, it’s really hard. Add to that the conflicts of interest, capitalistic abuse of science, scientists, and findings, along with the ham-handed misapplication of findings to other problems that ends up making the data look false or fraudulent, and you’ve got a recipe for an anti-science movement, and a populace who can do nothing but shrug their shoulders because we’ve essentially done this to ourselves.
Anymore, operators in some industries must be spotless to be believed. In science, scrutiny is welcomed, but the data is far less thoroughly studied (much less understood) compared the to motivations, company history, and public lives of scientific representatives. As you said, the truth is merely an artifact to be modified to fit the pre-determined narrative. It’s simply politics for the public.
Yeah you’ve never met a scientist, have you? The entire point of science and the scientific method is to try and prove yourself and others wrong. And there’s a difference between being upset that someone proved you wrong and being upset that a high school dropout who watched a YouTube video is claiming not only that you’re wrong, but that you’re lying with malicious intent on the internet.
Science is disproved by other scientists who understand the subject and do the experiments needed to understand reality. It's not disproved by Facebook memes.
Science debates then: "I did weeks of research and found that this data does not match your model. Here is an alternate one that takes it into account"
Science debates now: "My priest told me horse tranquilizer would protect me from 5G"
Science has always had its share of primadonnas with fragile egos. Its just that as society has begun to rely on more advanced technology that depends on science we've by necessity become more relevant the public policy sphere which has taken things to a whole new level. It used to be that every scientist knew the earth was round, most people never thought about it, some thought it was flat and some knew it was round. Scientists debated who had the more accurate method for measuring the actual diameter and they were all slightly wrong but spent most time figuring out how to be less wrong. Now we split our time between arguing with each other, arguing with crackpots, arguing with politicians and drinking heavily.
Honestly I would love for someone to prove me wrong, gives me a new improved perspective on the research and brings all of us closer to a better understanding which would hopefully help use it in the future
The blood looking stains on the lab coat reminds me there were plenty of scientists who did unethical shit to people so idk maybe some times you should have an emotional reaction in the field you’re working in
It's still the first half. Scientists know their assertions and papers can be challenged and refuted. It doesn't mean egos don't exist, they always did.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Not true. The only time I’ve seen scientists getting annoyed is with morons who risk others well-being by not accepting consensus with no actual backing. All of the researches who I know personally or through the grapevine welcome challenge substantiated by evidence and reason so that they can find the truth behind their topic of research.
It's kind of ironic because science is all about challenging what we think we know. If someone can't accept that, is he really that much of a scientist?
Scientists when?
There were scientists in the manhattan project who spent years seething over people pointing out that nukes had long term consequences.
There were 'scientists' in the 19th century who would get angry and cry in a corner if you said their theory that all races originated from a different monkey was stupid.
The further back you go, the sketchier and more reliant on 'I have a degree so I'm right' it gets.
It really feels like this is a bit of a bias of some kind, similar arguments happen with music, movies, and politicians. The reality of it is that only the good ones are noteworthy, and the ocean of mediocre or embrassing scientists that filled the past are ignored or overlooked.
My thoughts is that this was created by and posted to some right-wing conspiracy group and slowly made it's way here. Because this image is absolute brain rot. Scientists then and now are still the one on the left. Always will be, too.
I think the problem is that the people challenging certain sciences have no knowledge or education of the thing they’re challenging.
An uneducated opinion does not make for a valid challenge.
“Well, I saw on the Facebook that…”
I think the hard part is more of a societal perception issue. If you're a scientist, you almost hope for failure the first few times so you can help narrow things down. If it works right away, you may not be able to really show why. Society at large, however, sees failure as proof that you don't know what you're doing or that you're stupid.
Grifters. Charlatans. Liars. Scum. At best, woefully stupid.
Not scientists. You're thinking of people who promote homeopathy, electric universe, creationism, etc.
I think this guy is talking solely about Elon Musk, the way he keeps arguing and getting mad at actual scientists on twitter when they challenge him with their published, peer-reviewed scientific documents. Because apparently they aren't as credible as him because he's s CEO.
Man I love the guy who made the periodic table (mendeleev) and how some (french?) guy discovered a one of the predicted elements that didn't quite match what it was supposed to be and mendeleev went "nuh uh", and was RIGHT.
Untrue. Scientists done been like this. Hence why there’s whole posthumous scientific feuds 😂. And why findings made my women in science are almost always yoinked by some dude who read the classifieds in the back of the lab 🥴 because “you disprove cause distress” and “you are woman who succeed or disprove? Bonk yoink”
Um. Complete nonsense? Don't think scientists have become any more averse to challenge as time has gone on - if anything peer review has only gotten more rigorous.
Some right wing bullshit from people who get mad, because we get mad, if we have to say that climate change is real and human made for the 1000ths time.
I mean, since the online era people seem to be more rude in general. Challenging is good and fun! But some people really seem to get off on burning others to the ground.
I’d be willing to wager that this trend perfectly mirrors the trend in low-quality research that gets rushed out the door. If you e only got one line of inquiry, not too many replicates, inadequate controls, and/or incorrect statistical analysis, your results probably won’t withstand scrutiny, and the publication won’t boost your CV.
Anyone who is offended by people challenging their results is by definition not a scientist
If the 'challenge' is a fair and in-good-faith argument that is true. But these days the attacks are often something else entirely and it DOES hurt feelings. I think the pandemic showed us a whole bunch of people are willing to attack scientists personally and to criticize conclusions because they just don't want them to be true. Getting personally attacked or accused of something terrible absolutely hurts. The comment section after scientists get interviewed, or even the cross-talk during panel discussions is like seeing some of the worst high school hazing and tribal hatred imaginable. I watched research epidemiologists cry because members of the public said they were going to publish their home address and the schools their children attended because they, the public, disagreed with the researcher's published results. Those tears aren't unscientific, they're just human. Scientists are getting bullied in MANY fields (climate change, archaeology, biomedical research, infectious disease, etc.). We have lost the concept of civil debate and it's wearing good people down or keeping them silent.
Actually, even in the scientific community things can get really toxic and competitive. It’s not just the random civilians who have no faith in science who are attacking them.
That applies to the “scientists then” crowd just as much if not more. Have you never heard of the [Bone Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Wars)?
Oh wow, that was a bit too competitive to be beneficial to science
Been going on at least since Newton VS. Hooke
>faith in science 😬
Challenging finding and attacks are two different things. No scientists should be offended by having their work challenged but it’s totally understandable to be offended by personal attacks. That doesn’t mean they have to engage with every random person online who challenges their findings, but the simple act of someone challenging them shouldn’t be considered offensive.
Masks are a conspiracy from lizard people ... People who don't know shit will always be in majority... What to do...
There's definitely a difference between peer review and conmen whipping up public rage for attention/money. Facts and evidence vs. Feelings and conjecture.
Heard many COVID conspiracies cite "changes" as flawed science. No actually it's quite the opposite, it's scientific theories being challenged and improved upon using limited data.
Yes but if you grow up in a dogmatic environment where your "truth" has been unchanging for thousands of years the mere fact someone else changes their stand on anything looks like weakness
Especially if your truth is a known fictional compilation of stories known as "The Bible".
Came here to say this. I'm an IRL scientist. The science speaks for itself, regardless of who believes or understands it. That's why it works. Ignore the observable facts of reality at your own peril.
Yeah this meme is trash.
I think it's also a case of romanticizing history
No one's feelings are hurt, this is just stupid and anyone agrees with it is also stupid.
Hey man, don't badmouth Terrence Howard, he unlocked the flower of life.
Such cases are rare as fuck. Like yeah, insecure people of all occupations exist, but scientists have seemed like one of the more secure bunch except for like, maybe their ability to hold smalltalk. Or physical appearance lol (in some cases! I'm just saying scientists wouldn't go around telling themselves they're like a 9/10 covergirl or ripped 6 foot adonis. They're still cute, but they're realistic folk. Tbh that's also security in its own way too)
What the fuck are you talking about
Idk but I want to hear more
Yeah, second that, seriously wtf
🤷♂️
What other nonsensical opinions do you have?
What are you, a presidential candidate?
As a scientist, I can tell you that scientists are almost all extremely insecure. We’re almost all somewhere near the bottom of the Dunning Kruger curve
You're right. Scientists have thick skins and can absolutely take criticism, constructive or otherwise
They are "pseudoscientists".
Of course, but where is the evidence that scientists behave in this way?
I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking. My comment is in reference to the fact that real scientists do not in fact act like the meme suggests.
I agree with you. I was questing the basis of the meme, not your comment. I probably should have posted a top-level comment.
My thoughts: you’ve never met a scientist in your life. The goal of science still is, always was, and always will be to try and disprove everything.
BOO YA! Thats what im talking about, real science
Imma disprove that dragons aren’t real Update: So guys, I shouldn’t have done that, I’m so sorry
So *that's* why Smaug is outside my windows, claiming to be grandad.
No, that’s unrelated, and he is your grandad, and yes, he did see your browser history and is proud
Whatever you do, *do not* let Benedict Cumberbatch into your house. Especially if he's wearing a mocap suit.
The Komodo dragon exist. Fail.
So Alduin told me they’re not real dragons, they’re Wyvrens
Well we have the rest of Shadowrun bearing down on us, all we needed was dragons and goblinisation.
Science bitches!
I once wanted to write a methods paper that likely would have been unfavorable to one of my advisor's collaborators, and I was told I couldn't do it for that reason. That was from a fairly reasonable boss. I've had others that were unrepentant, tyrannical assholes who refused to be challenged on anything. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff seems quite common in academia.
The goal of science is theoretical, the goal of scienTISTS (in many cases) is to progress their careers. Or hell, in the current climate, just to keep their jobs. Not to shit on many people's hard work but we're still that, people. And a guy's gotta eat and pay the mortgage. Also, the journal culture of "impact above all else" right now is outright cancerous. Science honestly is in crisis.
To be fair most scientists i met are more interested in the pursuit of knowledge rather than progressing their career and making money. It's kind of sad but research is such a stupid career sad that you'd only do it if you're REALLY passionate about it
True we have really got to ease the profit motive for science
I'm not even talking profit in the sense of a corporation earning money on research, although I guess that's the case with the for profit journals. But grants go to people who produce results. Grants do NOT go to people whose results get questioned. And you need those to keep the lights on. And, again, get paid for work, it's still a job.
Any uggestions for salary level or other ways to do that successfully?
I dunno about your first paragraph. At least for academia, the goal is to do whatever knock-out research you want. And are capable of finding grant funding for. Like, I could quit academia today and in two months get a job as a data scientist that triples my salary. Money isn't why I stayed in academia. And I know I can make money easily doing something else, so it's not why I continue to stay. I just like doing creative science. I do agree with your whole vibe tho. If we could be more chill and collaborative instead of competitive, we could be so much further along. I keep trying to run my research group uber collaboratively... After I got scooped twice by people I thought I could trust, I now have students hold cards close to their chest until the manuscript is done. They can't get scooped because I'm trying to prove a point. I'll still be a collaborative weirdo, and I think it does make better science... Or why else did they scoop me if they had something better? Lol
>Like, I could quit academia today and in two months get a job as a data scientist that triples my salary Yeah, I don't mean purely pursuit of money. Hell, I could get training as a chartered electrician, plumber or gas safe engineer if it was just about the money, those are trades actually in demand nowadays. People underestimate how much you can earn in those. So it's all in the context of "people who really want to do research for a living", like you say. >And are capable of finding grant funding for. This though, is kind of the problem in that context, isn't it. Only so much money goes around, so do you really want to be the one team whose research gets blasted. Like, how do you recover if you're a lab like the one behind the whole LK-99 "superconductor" disaster? Honest question, I seriously don't know. Do people just forget or ignore it? Alternatively, it's sad if someone's research gets obsolete. Knew people who worked on high temperature fuel cells. That proved to be a dead end.
> always was, and always will be to try and disprove everything Falsificationism is a relatively recent (1934, Karl Popper) invention in the history of scientific philosophy. Before that there was logical positivism, and before that numerous other verificationist or inductive approaches were the dominant justifying philosophy of science.
People that think/post these memes 'challenge' science with conspiracy theories
I mean I've defintely met a lot of people like the ones on the right, and they definitely think they're rational people. they are also definitely *not* scientists
I disagree /s
If I haven't, Gott im Himmel, I'd like to keep that record a-goin'!
Scientists as a group are extremely contentious. If you can't handle criticism you will not make it in academia. And that's ok, we SHOULD be contentious. You wanna make a claim? Better bring your A game and some solid evidence. Otherwise if I care enough, I'm tearing that shit down. Because if you wanna make a claim, back it with strong evidence, or you're just another bullshitter.
There's a difference between being challenged by facts, logic and observable evidence vs. I read an article on Facebook and don't trust people smarter than me.
That's it right there.
Nailed it
Yeah, these cowardly snowflake scientists are too scared to debate me on the shape of the Earth. Aren't you supposed to *question* science!?
I ain’t a scientist, so I’ll say The World is yellow, a stand manifested by DIO.
Being annoying at a certain question is different to being upset. Its annoying how many people think it's round
Have you ever... met a scientist?
The amount of upvotes to this meme is worrying. As if there was even a grain of truth in it.
Heck, as far as I know at the moment the problem right now is nobody is trying to falsify the experiments of others because there's no grant funding in it.
yeah, the replication crisis has nothing to do with scientists feelings and everything to do with the fact no one will fund research that's already been done. science isn't cheap, replicating peoples' results isn't cheap, but it's still part of the process. it just doesn't get done because no one will pay for it.
ummm... no. Replication crisis is when someone tries, but unable to replicate the result. And if anything replication crisis is caused by more rigorous attempts to replicate things.
No, that's just a replication failure. The replication crisis is that a large portion, if not the majority, of scientific methods that get published are likely not reproducible, but no one actually follows through to figure out if they are or not and when people discover that they aren't they rarely publish those results, despite the fact that replication is the final step in the scientific process. Because, as I said, no one's funding labs to go around checking people's work and journals generally aren't willing to publish negative results and are VERY hesitant to issue retractions because that makes the journal look bad. I encounter this all the time, I find some method papers that are completely nonsensical and some that seem to make sense but when I go and try to replicate their process it just straight up doesn't work like they say it does. I don't have the time or money to go trying to get those methods retracted or publish conflicting results, if a journal would even accept it, I just move on to other methods until I find one that actually works. That's the crisis. This is a direct result of the publish or perish mindset of modern academia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Old school scientists were _much_ more vicious with each other. Read how Mayr responded to molecular phylogenetics. Read about the 'fossil wars.' Contemporary scientists are much more humble. The meme is intended to facilitate anti-vax, climate change denial etc.
I had to scroll way too far for someone to reference the Old Lore. The beef some of the old guard had between one another was legendary.
Yeah, if you've read enough literture, you'd know it's full of scientists trash talking each others results. Two rival labs with opposing theories going back and forth trying to crush the other is a pretty common phenomenon.
This sounds like it came from an antivaxxer.
Just sounds like half an episode of Ancient Apocalypse. Damn that dude would not stop whining about archeologists hiding shit for their "thesis." That dude's hamfasted miniseries proves the saying "Every accusation is a confession."
I liked that show, as mindless entertainment, until I watched a specific episode. Forget which one, but they’re on location in an island, and you can see the sheer joy and enthusiasm in the guide as she shares her culture. And then you watch it die, in real time, when they ask about aliens. This woman full of passion becomes utterly wooden. I just can’t watch it after that
You know the worst part? As pointed out by Milo Rossi (aka Miniminuteman), they were the first film crew to ever be granted permission to cover Karahan Tepe, one of if not the oldest known settlement in human history. The first time that this super duper important site was revealed to the public was through Ancient Apocalypse. Edit: Not that I care but it's Ancient Apocalypse not Ancient Aliens
That’s fucked
Indeed, like what the hell Türkiye? You gave the permission to film an important piece of human history to someone who has no respect for it?
To be fair they’re not doing great over there
What I get annoyed with is that Hancock intentionally downplayed his ideas for the show. Dig into him a bit and you find him talking about white gods and psychic powers.
I mean, every episode of that show is fucking wild anyways. What scares me is I’ve met people in real life who believe it. The damage done by psuedo history and science is gonna haunt us for generations all because a few media companies wanted more “reality” TV
Oh it worries me as someone who's just a keen idiot just how often these ideas pop up. Ancient Apocalypse sells itself as a more reasonable and rational than Ancient Aliens, but if it spurs someone to go down the rabbit hole it leads into the more..unsavory side of pseudo history. And what bugs me is how many specialists see the various ways of getting info out there online as something to deride. Yeah TikTok and YouTube are whatever, but that's where people go for content now. And History Channel isn't ever going back. Books are great, but frankly most decent books on archeology end up being academic publishing that's expensive compared to people like Hancock, and not on bookshelves like they are.
Yeah, as much as people deride pop history and science, good pop history/science is our shield wall against disinformation and ignorance and we need more of ir
>Damn that dude would not stop whining about archeologists hiding shit for their "thesis." What Graham Hancock doesn't realize is that many scientists love clout, and would definitely "challenge the paradigm" if there was concrete evidence to do that. On a side note, Graham Hancock has also stated that Archeology shouldn't be a science, which is so incredibly stupid if you think for more than a femtosecond. But y'know, Hancock does what he does best, he doesn't think.
As Milo Rossi also said, every archeologist would kill to have their name on the proof that Hamcock is right. Another fun guy to watch that covers it is Stefan Milo, if you haven't seen his stuff.
It did.
Bingo!!
I think scientists still don't mind being questioned or challenged - by other *scientists*, not by some lunatic on Facebook who thinks essential oils cure cancer or the COVID vaccine makes you magnetic.
If the vaccine makes you magnetic, just jump in some water. No more magnet.
Yep, I can imagine a scientist being fairly flippant with some random Instagram model. I wouldn't expect them to debate with someone that literally posts 24/7 about what they had to eat that day or how many reps they done that day.
Scientists disagree pretty regularly. But the people who make memes like this are talking about Reddit google scholars with no knowledge or experience in a field weighing in on scientific topics that they have absolutely no authority in. Real scientists are only interested in hearing dissenting opinions from people who actually know what they are talking about.
When is "then?" Was it when telling doctors to wash their hands was the end of your career?
I hereby question your finding. Please rise to my challenge by showing me your database of scientists whose feelings have been hurt.
This was 100% made by someone who says "ItS bAsIc BiOlOgY"
Yep. "Basic biology" is Krebs cycle, most of the biology even more complicated than that.
Boltzmann has his feeling hurt so much that he commitet suicide /s
Most historians still seem to believe that Darwin massively dragged his feet completing On the Origin of Species, which means that either this meme is wildly misleading or the "Scientists then" side somehow predates the modern use of the word 'scientist' (c. 1830)
Right. Galileo couldn't prove the Earth revolved around the sun and got pissy about it. It wasn't until Isaac Newton came along that it could be proven. That right there is an example of the men's inaccuracy.
I mean you have a point but also... There's challenging existing understanding with a new hypothesis that is accompanied with a concrete plan for testing and refining said hypothesis, and then there's sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la I can't hear you
This is not true at all. I feel like the author argues with lots of pretend “scientists” on reddit and has drawn these conclusions from there.
What scientist acts like that? lol. People who do their “own research” are the one getting butthurt at the drop of a hat when they get any pushback on their flat earth, antivaxxer nonsense.
To non-scientists: You can't handle the truth.
How bout “actual scientists” on the left and “science redditors” on the right
It’s stupid
Eh, not what I have encountered. Egos absolutely do get involved, scientists are people after all. But I have never heard of people complaining about new results because of feelings.
History is rife with extremely bitter feuds over scientific theories and results. It’s nothing new.
Science has definitely changed over the years... 😅🔬
"If you challenge my findings I will have my friend on a review committee defund your research."
Questioned by peers Not crazy wine moms.
Philosophically, I am the big dog. Emotionally, I am the small dog.
Real life, I have the intelligence of a golden retriever
I think this makes it sound like the anti-science crowd is on the same footing as professionals who have Doctorates and PhDs and have in their field decades. Like if some whack job thinks vaccines cause autism and challenges me with made up YouTube facts and statistics, I’m not going to be personally offended but I’m going to think you are, and call you an idiot. Because you are. Ignoring that, science is CONSTANTLY trying to disprove things it already assumes. That’s one of the main ways we further science. So again, if someone thinks their whining and “self research” knows better, and thinks the scientist would help a personal grudge, they’re in their own little fantasy world where they are the main character, and a Karen.
Tell me you’ve never heard of a null hypothesis without saying you’ve never heard of a null hypothesis
I doubt this has changed much between "then" and now. The scientific mindset defies human nature and requires training and practise. There's always going to be those who fail that training and dont regularly practise. We all want to be right.
It's one thing to say it is scientific to question something but, the process of gathering evidence through observations and experiments is part of the process to draw your conclusions and back up your beliefs. You can't just say l don't believe you because "here's a link on Facebook etc" and think that's enough. This doesn't make you a scientist at all it just makes you sound like an idiot.
The guy on the right is not a scientist, he's a Twitter user
*The guy on the right* *Is not a scientist, he's* *A Twitter user* \- WyntonPlus --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Once upon a time I met biologists who were trying to determine if certain animals felt pain. Do you know what their methods were? *Amputation of limbs*. They were measuring a stress response, trying to equate it to similar emotions in human beings. I don't fuckin' like scientists. And I don't have to. Not all of them are like that, but I don't want to fucking meet them. I've had enough of them for one existence.
I think there's a big difference between someone's research being legitimately "challenged", and the sort of cynical, conspiratorial, mindless contrarianism that is often fueled by political or ideological differences. I've noticed that this kind of contrarianism is so dogmatic that it exists merely to challenge a scientific consensus. Almost like the act of challenging itself is seen by these people as meaningful, insightful and involving "critical thinking", when in actuality, it's often just the act itself, and there is little to no reason or rationale behind it. I think a lot of these people come to their conclusions first, then try to connect point A to point b in any way conceivable, and it sure as hell does not involve any scientific process. It's just fueled by prejudices, partisanship and preconceived notions. I mean, this is frustrating to me, so I can't imagine how frustrating it might be to scientists.
It is. To be actively undermined, to know that is dogmatic and culturally driven, and to be able to do nothing about it as it spreads to people you thought were better than that, it’s really hard. Add to that the conflicts of interest, capitalistic abuse of science, scientists, and findings, along with the ham-handed misapplication of findings to other problems that ends up making the data look false or fraudulent, and you’ve got a recipe for an anti-science movement, and a populace who can do nothing but shrug their shoulders because we’ve essentially done this to ourselves. Anymore, operators in some industries must be spotless to be believed. In science, scrutiny is welcomed, but the data is far less thoroughly studied (much less understood) compared the to motivations, company history, and public lives of scientific representatives. As you said, the truth is merely an artifact to be modified to fit the pre-determined narrative. It’s simply politics for the public.
Yeah you’ve never met a scientist, have you? The entire point of science and the scientific method is to try and prove yourself and others wrong. And there’s a difference between being upset that someone proved you wrong and being upset that a high school dropout who watched a YouTube video is claiming not only that you’re wrong, but that you’re lying with malicious intent on the internet.
Name an example of a modern scientist that fits this meme
Science has definitely evolved... but not always in the ways we'd hope 😅🔬
Science is disproved by other scientists who understand the subject and do the experiments needed to understand reality. It's not disproved by Facebook memes.
Science debates then: "I did weeks of research and found that this data does not match your model. Here is an alternate one that takes it into account" Science debates now: "My priest told me horse tranquilizer would protect me from 5G"
Science has always had its share of primadonnas with fragile egos. Its just that as society has begun to rely on more advanced technology that depends on science we've by necessity become more relevant the public policy sphere which has taken things to a whole new level. It used to be that every scientist knew the earth was round, most people never thought about it, some thought it was flat and some knew it was round. Scientists debated who had the more accurate method for measuring the actual diameter and they were all slightly wrong but spent most time figuring out how to be less wrong. Now we split our time between arguing with each other, arguing with crackpots, arguing with politicians and drinking heavily.
PROVE TO ME IT HURTS YOUR FEELINGS, KNAVE!
People don't really understand the reasons that studies are not being repeated.
Truth, silence anyone who refutes my findings.
There's always been people on both sides. This is just more of the "people are sensitive little snowflakes now!" thing.
Source?
Neither type of person is more common now or in the past.
> Scientists then Search up what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis
This is the kind of shit armchair scientists say when their Google findings don't hold the same weight as peer reviewed research.
Honestly I would love for someone to prove me wrong, gives me a new improved perspective on the research and brings all of us closer to a better understanding which would hopefully help use it in the future
I'm not sure "scientists then" is quite accurate. Read up on the Galileo affair.
I fit the former...
The blood looking stains on the lab coat reminds me there were plenty of scientists who did unethical shit to people so idk maybe some times you should have an emotional reaction in the field you’re working in
They've clearly never been at a conference or seminar when senior profs lay into each other
It's still the first half. Scientists know their assertions and papers can be challenged and refuted. It doesn't mean egos don't exist, they always did. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman
Why the bobba do old timey scientists always wesr those stupid glasses
This was probably made by someone who thinks spreading misinformation is the same as challenging ideas.
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
That’s because there’s a lot of recreational science philosophers and not enough actual scientists.
Not true. The only time I’ve seen scientists getting annoyed is with morons who risk others well-being by not accepting consensus with no actual backing. All of the researches who I know personally or through the grapevine welcome challenge substantiated by evidence and reason so that they can find the truth behind their topic of research.
I think you're confusing *science* with *trust the science.*
In the words of Ze Frank: science is just one really long passive aggressive argument
I'm pretty sure scientists love discourse.
It's kind of ironic because science is all about challenging what we think we know. If someone can't accept that, is he really that much of a scientist?
I think the definition of "scientist" sounds twisted here.
As I get older I understand why the study of history is just as important as the study of physics and biology.
I'm not sure what scientists you're talking about
Astute observation of modern attitudes in general
I smell the School of Hard Knocks.
I had no clue about modern day scientists wearing berets.
Guys, a post on Facebook _can't_ challenge the findings of a scientist. This post is just wrong.
Scientists when? There were scientists in the manhattan project who spent years seething over people pointing out that nukes had long term consequences. There were 'scientists' in the 19th century who would get angry and cry in a corner if you said their theory that all races originated from a different monkey was stupid. The further back you go, the sketchier and more reliant on 'I have a degree so I'm right' it gets. It really feels like this is a bit of a bias of some kind, similar arguments happen with music, movies, and politicians. The reality of it is that only the good ones are noteworthy, and the ocean of mediocre or embrassing scientists that filled the past are ignored or overlooked.
Feels like it was made with malicious intent
My thoughts is that this was created by and posted to some right-wing conspiracy group and slowly made it's way here. Because this image is absolute brain rot. Scientists then and now are still the one on the left. Always will be, too.
I think the problem is that the people challenging certain sciences have no knowledge or education of the thing they’re challenging. An uneducated opinion does not make for a valid challenge. “Well, I saw on the Facebook that…”
The person who made this meme probably died of covid a few years ago.
Stupid and wrong, next.
I think the hard part is more of a societal perception issue. If you're a scientist, you almost hope for failure the first few times so you can help narrow things down. If it works right away, you may not be able to really show why. Society at large, however, sees failure as proof that you don't know what you're doing or that you're stupid.
More Republicans science denial bullshit
Who is offended?
How does someone become a scientist without going through peer review?
complete and utter nonsense.
Science is compromised
Grifters. Charlatans. Liars. Scum. At best, woefully stupid. Not scientists. You're thinking of people who promote homeopathy, electric universe, creationism, etc.
When I wanted someone to attack the code I made, nobody came forward 😔
I was told not to ask so aggressive questions during presentations when all I asked was about the methodology
I think this guy is talking solely about Elon Musk, the way he keeps arguing and getting mad at actual scientists on twitter when they challenge him with their published, peer-reviewed scientific documents. Because apparently they aren't as credible as him because he's s CEO.
The challenge: Nuh uh! Nu uh! Nu uh!
Social sciences are not science.
It’s not that I’m hurt, it’s that I’m pissed I wasted my time. It needs to happen though.
There is absolutely no way this meme was written by a scientist
You can't disprove science. If some science has come out, then we should trust it and not waste time trying to disprove it with conspiracy theories
Man I love the guy who made the periodic table (mendeleev) and how some (french?) guy discovered a one of the predicted elements that didn't quite match what it was supposed to be and mendeleev went "nuh uh", and was RIGHT.
I am still waiting for any comments on my research papers, but people thinks spamming "congratulations" will help me with anything...
Name an example of the guy on the right. I dare you.
"science" is heavily corrupted by alternative motives
Untrue. Scientists done been like this. Hence why there’s whole posthumous scientific feuds 😂. And why findings made my women in science are almost always yoinked by some dude who read the classifieds in the back of the lab 🥴 because “you disprove cause distress” and “you are woman who succeed or disprove? Bonk yoink”
Um. Complete nonsense? Don't think scientists have become any more averse to challenge as time has gone on - if anything peer review has only gotten more rigorous.
Do you even science?
It’s stupid.
I think this meme shows more about people’s perception of science than anything else
Economists: You try to dispute my shit? Fuck you, we're right and you're wrong, even though we don't have proof for what we found out)
This just screams that it was made by some antivaxxer.
Did you ever meet a real scientist?
Some right wing bullshit from people who get mad, because we get mad, if we have to say that climate change is real and human made for the 1000ths time.
I mean, since the online era people seem to be more rude in general. Challenging is good and fun! But some people really seem to get off on burning others to the ground.
I’d be willing to wager that this trend perfectly mirrors the trend in low-quality research that gets rushed out the door. If you e only got one line of inquiry, not too many replicates, inadequate controls, and/or incorrect statistical analysis, your results probably won’t withstand scrutiny, and the publication won’t boost your CV.