this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
824 points (95.0% liked)

Science Memes

16016 readers
3195 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's not my job to read papers for you. You don't get free labor

[–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So you didn't read it either? Interesting.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nope, guess you're going to have to read it yourself to find out if they're assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.

[–] brianary@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you've provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.

[–] brianary@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense.

You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication.

Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck!

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago

The syllogism P (you read something) then Q (you learn something) presumes a) you can process information contained within the written word and b) you have the capability of learning. While not conclusively falsified by these exchange, a postpostivist interpretation suggests that the preponderance of the evidence rests with the counterfactual. No need for P to actually take place. Thanks for playing, best of luck in your future endeavors.