• HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Third option: they’ve fallen into a pattern recognition fallacy and think it’s a number when it’s a completely different symbol. This happens a lot more often than most realize and even knowing about it, it can be difficult to go against the human instinct to find patterns that may or may not exist and then fit the data to it.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Someone, somewhere, will misrepresent this to give credence to the “do your own research” crowd.

    Which is not to discredit the message. They misrepresent everything.

  • MudMan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    See, this meme is annoyed at the ramifications of epistemological relativism.

    I am extremely annoyed by the superfluous commas.

  • eoddc5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    That grammar is shit as hell, too.

    “Just because you are right

    Does not mean

    I am wrong

    Except my grammar

    Which sucks doodie”

  • Phlogiston@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m a little amused that in the comic both viewers are correct relative to their frame of reference. An extremely powerful concept that significantly advanced physics and about which famous people are household names.

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m a little amused that in the comic both viewers are correct relative to their frame of reference. An extremely powerful concept that significantly advanced physics and about which famous people are household names.

      You accidentally made the wrong point, because Einstein’s breakthrough of special relativity was that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference frame.

      So if two people with different frames of reference are measuring the speed of light differently, at least one of them is objectively wrong.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        But if they measure the order of events differently, they may both be correct. That is because light is always perceived as being the same speed regardless of the observer.

        • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          And yet, causality is preserved, and there is a clear specific mathematical relationship between the two frames of reference.

          So you will measure differently, but as soon as you do the math to account for your different frames of reference, you will again have the same measurements. Of course, we know there is an objective mathematical relationship between the two frames of reference, because the speed of light is constant.

  • Ilflish@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “The building is behind me therefore it’s a six”

    “But the number should be facing away from the building therefore it’s a nine”

    Me, an intellectual: “I want egg”

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    To further this point, there was an incident in early human history where it was debated whether the massive blobs in space where gas giants or galaxy. It went so far, in fact, that a mass of people built a telescope to clearly see the blobs just to prove eachother wrong and find out that both ideas were correct.

    • DanielCF@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m aware of the irony of correcting you but I can’t help it. Nebulae not gas giants. Gas giants were known to be planets at the time, as they have apparent motion relative to the Stars. Nebulae and galaxies don’t have apparent motion relitive to the stars.

  • produnis@discuss.tchncs.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    To all native speaker complaining about grammar: please translate the meme into german or french (without using AI)