this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
922 points (94.1% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers
2890 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
922
She-Ra Lives! (mander.xyz)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Would be a nice plot twist, but do you habe any sources for your claim? If this is real I would like to know more

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10306201/

This paper has a lot of back and forth. Another commenter posted a rebuttal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't spread it around. It's a complete fraud of a paper for all we know. Just the fact that it has convincing rebuttals is enough to make you consider it irrelevant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's not a fraud. Science isn't black and white. Discussing things is a good thing. It's still peer reviewed and not retracted in a decent journal. Not everyone dismisses it. The authors have responded to some of the criticisms by publishing additional information in the linked "correction" (functions like an attachment added later). Science is a conversation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

No, you're thinking of philosophy. Philosophy is a discussion. Science is a process. Just the fact that they are being accused of being misleading and outright falsyfyiing evidence is enough to simply ignore their purported results until they can produce a paper that fixes all those problems.

It's not a discussion whether we can agree on something. The evidence should do the only talking.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Check out "The Dawn of Everything" by Wengrow and Graeber

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Different point of view on your “source”, which is a mass market paperback made to sell and be consumed, not for serious scientific inquiry.

https://libcom.org/article/wrong-about-almost-everything-review-dawn-everything-david-graeber-david-wengrow

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This author is a crackpot that also went after Chomsky. Chomsky had a hilarious rebuttal from what I remember. He really has a thing for anarchists. I'll trust these critics more when they do published rebuttals. I'm pretty sure several chapters in this book were published in some journals.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah it's a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I'm like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it's just as academic as "Debt" was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it's a way for critics to get their name out there.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah, that critic made a career on doing hit pieces. I also find it unconvincing lmao.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

What I find interesting about this article is that it critiques heavily about the first 200 pages, says almost nothing about the next 600, and then says the conclusion is unsatisfactory because it didn't quote the book the author wrote in 1991. It's transparently personal.

Academics write books. Get over it.