this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
936 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

17415 readers
1839 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
 
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 130 points 1 month ago
[–] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 65 points 1 month ago (3 children)

One of our bioinformatics has a sign at his desk that says "taxonomy is a social construct".

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Conservatives hate this one trick!

(The trick: literally everything in all aspects of reality, from the larges to smallest scales to every branch of life and consciousness is a motherfucking SPECTRUM. No hard lines. Nothing is solid. Not even the matter you're standing or sitting on.)

[–] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago

"Yah but nuance is so hard! It's so much easier to just hate everything I don't understand"

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

“taxonomy is a social construct”

i mean for bacteria it actually is because bacteria can exchange genes across "species" so it's not really a species... at least not in the sense of eukaryotes (where species are defined such that different species cannot exchange genes with each other)

[–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even for anything else, it actually is. Taxonomy is our construct that we came up with as a society to classify life. We cannot ever be "right" about it, it can just be more or less useful for us to understand life.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

in that case we cannot ever be "right" about anything, as any thought we have is just a model that helps us get through life?

[–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes and it is very important to constantly remind ourselves that all our abstractions and classifications are just that. Helpful tools for us to view and understand the world. People tend to forget that and over time see their categorization as essential and natural. For example, sex and gender are both socially constructed but people forget that and then create a whole set of rules around it to reinforce that categorization including social stigmatization and infant mutilation.

ok then two comments:

  • if nothing is strictly true, then that implies that the statement that "nothing is strictly true" is also not strictly true, i.e. there are exceptions which are strictly true ...

  • jokes aside, your comment reminds me of a funny story i once read where a biologist does research on clover (you might know this one). he investigates all clover he can find and finds that they all have 3 leaves. so he calls it a law of nature that clover has three leaves.

one faithful morning, he walks out of door and finds a 4-leaved clover in the garden (which is symbol of good luck in some cultures). however, he rebukes at that and tries to sue the clover for violating the law of nature ...

kinda the same spirit as what you said above. people make observations, then make these observations into laws, and if somebody breaks them, that's their fault. instead, the model was conceived inappropriately .

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 month ago

A paper I quite enjoy is "Queer Theory for Lichens" which argued that queer theory is genuinely a useful framework for studying lichens; Lichens resist categorisation in a manner that feels like they're actively mocking our taxonomic efforts.

[–] Nikls94@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (2 children)

BEHOLD! THE MAMMAL! IT GIVES MILK AND HAS HAIR!

(And has venomous claws, lays eggs, has electroreceptors, glows under UV, has 10 sex chromosomes, genetically it’s a mix of reptiles and mammals…)

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

sounds like average republican

[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Please do not insult the platypus like that!

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If the venemous claws fit.

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

but what if platypus is republican?

[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] BilSabab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

i'm just sayin'. there are possibilities. you know the climate change, chemtrails - things get weird))

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago

It's one of twoish (one species of platypus, three of echidnas) mammals on its order (the other order which has all the more normal mammals — placental mammals) it's so different to the other mammals that really all monotremes have in common with placentals is hair and milk

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ok, but chickens produce milk too, just like coconuts:
wiki/Crop_milk

Also dis:

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

Some spiders also produce milk.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 month ago

So they are coconuts.

[–] lath@piefed.social 11 points 1 month ago

Hmm... I am a quack, therefore I duck?

[–] artifex@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I'm a little sad that everyone's focused on the coconut and missing the reference to the naked man who lives in a barell trolling the father of western philosophy.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Actually, it's about the teeth.

[–] AntEater@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If it doesn't have a tail, it's not a monkey, even if it has a monkey kind of shape.

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] AntEater@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not if they don’t have a tail.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Monkey, the order for all simians include apes. In common usage "monkey" means any simian except apes.

[–] Friendlybirdseggs@sopuli.xyz -3 points 1 month ago