this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
454 points (96.3% liked)

Science Memes

20835 readers
652 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.


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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 month ago
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 month ago

Yes please lets have a semantic debate in which no one defines their terms

[–] AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 25 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Genuinely though, English seems to lack the distinction between truth (the absolute state of something being universally true), truth (something that is correct from some point of view) and truth (an idea someone is dedicated to).

Some other languages have different words for these "truths". You could say that first is truth, second is perspective, and third is an idea, but all three can be named "truth", which can easily spark a debate over simple misunderstanding of what you mean, exactly.

[–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I would argue that the first and third are perversions of the word. A truth that is universal should be called a law. Like the law of entropy. Unfortunately the word "law" has also ben twisted to mean legal policy. The third should be "belief," as it is what you hold inside you. Religion call their beliefs "truth" to push their agenda.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] xylogx@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Science routinely solves problems like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51

In some sense this is the very heart of science: taking disparate views of the world and drawing likely conclusions that are testable and reproducible.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The twist:

It’s actually a flat piece of paper.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

How very Escher of you...

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Gödel , Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The object's ness is objective. The projection is your own dumbass ways of perceiving it because you lack the ability to objectively observe.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] halvar@lemy.lol 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Some say we live in a post-truth world. I say we live in a post-realism world. It's not that objective reality vanished once this massive scale in ideological separation happened, it's just that people stopped giving a fuck once it happened. Objective truth didn't vanish though, most people just live without letting it inconvinience them.

We live in a post-world world

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Truth can be subjective, in one scenario: when it's not the complete truth.

However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

It’s only a lie if there’s intent to deceive. Mistakes are not lies and false memories are not lies.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.

Can an incomplete truth be not a lie if it's incomplete, because the speaking person just doesn't know the whole truth?

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

When you say something fully believing it, it is not a lie, regardless of factual/objective correctness.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The only thing you know is that you know nothing. Really a pointless conversation unless you wanted to circle jerk on Lemmy. oh wait

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frog@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Depending on the light source or sources, there should be a gradient on the top and bottom parts of the first projection.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GainGround@kopitalk.net 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think people that say things like that are attempting to take up an analytic position akin to Wittgenstein or one of the other early linguistic philosophers, but they simply don't understand the work they're reading. Otherwise I genuinely do not know what they're trying to argue or prove. Wittgenstein and others like him have flaws even when argued perfectly, so it's kind of a null position to argue.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

what, you ain't familiar with the double cylinder experiment?

[–] supplier@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

Plato has an allegory that would be right up your alley

load more comments
view more: next ›