this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
77 points (100.0% liked)

Science

23502 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Hexbear's science community!

Subscribe to see posts about research and scientific coverage of current events

No distasteful shitposting, pseudoscience, or COVID-19 misinformation.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It activates the same chemicals in your brain as cocaine! not-built-for-this

Well, yeah, there are only ~~three~~^[@Neuromancer49@midwest.social corrected me] a few neurotransmitters. That's not saying much.

You know what else activates those chemicals? Practically everything. When scientists breed "knockout" mice without dopamine, the mice just stand there until they die of thirst, because there is no reward for.... living.

It contains more germs than a toilet seat! NOOOOO

Germs like moist surfaces. We don't want germs on our toilets, which is why we make them out of porcelain, which is hard, dry, non-porous, and easy to clean.

If it had more germs than your colon, then I would be concerned.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
[–] WrongOnTheInternet@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No comrade, Lamarck predicted epigenetics! /s

In reality they were all wrong to a significant degree and also usually contributed significantly to some aspect of what is taken for granted as the 'correct' scientific knowledge

For example, it's been known Mendel must have faked his data for almost a hundred years, but that doesn't make Mendelism wrong (after you strip out the stuff that is wrong)

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

For example, it's been known Mendel must have faked his data for almost a hundred years, but that doesn't make Mendelism wrong (after you strip out the stuff that is wrong)

"Fisher's analysis gave rise to the Mendelian paradox: Mendel's reported data are, statistically speaking, too good to be true, yet "everything we know about Mendel suggests that he was unlikely to engage in either deliberate fraud or in an unconscious adjustment of his observations".[71] Several writers have attempted to resolve this paradox."

Does Wikipedia have a license to peddle copium of this purity?

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago

Not exactly, the only thing that he was correct about in that regard was the existence of a material carrier of heritable information. Literally everything else he conjectured about it was wrong like thinking that it would be continuous rather than discrete and so on.