this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
415 points (96.4% liked)

Science Memes

20430 readers
684 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 days ago

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

[–] BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 98 points 4 days ago (25 children)

truth isn't subjective, but perspective changes how you see something.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 54 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (9 children)

It's rather curious how those people who claim truth is subjective never do it for gravity, jumping off a high building while claiming "gravity is false for me". Because guess what, odds are they know it's bullshit.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Personally, I don’t believe in football.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You might have to goad them a bit with "it's only a theory"

[–] Senal@programming.dev 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (18 children)

I doubt you've come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.

The example you give isn't an example of subjective truth, it's an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn't the same thing.

I also doubt you've met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.

It's entirely possible, but unlikely.

Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 days ago (10 children)

In Einstein's general relativity, different observers can disagree about the order of timed events, so long as their individual stories don't violate causality. This is broadly known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 8 points 4 days ago (4 children)

[Warning: bar philosophy. Might include ramblings, booze, chain smoking, and fried snacks.]

And yet, gravity is still there.

Even if simultaneity is relative, the phenomenon is still there, you know? You can claim something fell before or after another event, but you can't really claim it didn't fall. And you can't claim two simultaneous events stopped being simultaneous if they're stationary for you, so it's less of a "truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!" and more of a "truth is relative to that speed". It's still an objective matter, not a subjective one.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] xylogx@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 25 points 4 days ago (6 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 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)

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

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days 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)
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The twist:

It’s actually a flat piece of paper.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days 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)
[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Gödel , Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›