this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
1115 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

20679 readers
2127 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.



Meta Post Tags



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.


If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.

Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.

See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.



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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, it's not. The joke is that there is a correlation, but that actually correlation doesn't mean causation. But here we have a situation where there is neither correlation nor causation.

The problem is that the joke suggests that correlation is when A -> B (or at least it appears as such). Implication (in formal logic) is not the same as correlation.

[–] credo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Sorry to get mathematical..

P(A∣B)=P(A) iff

P(B∣A)=P(B) iff

P(A∩B)=P(A)P(B)

->𝐴 and 𝐵 are uncorrelated or independent.

There is no correlation with events with probability 1

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

isn't that just Bayesian apologist propaganda?
*jumps in an unlabelled Frequentist van* "Floor it!"

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Don't even need to bring probability into this. Death is certain, and correlation requires variance.

Yup.

If the rate of dying is 100% for all humans.

Then the rate of dying for both humans who confuse correlation and causation and those who don’t is 100%. Hence there is no correlation between the confusion and dying. So no one is confusing correlation or causation, because neither are present.