this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
850 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

11189 readers
3085 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I just want to point out that this source indicates researchers reviewed 1500 papers on the topic and found that unsupported claims had doubled.

However, they never indicate the number or give a percentage of those 1500 papers that featured unsupported claims.

So is it doubling from 2 to 4, or from 700 to 1400? Because that's a major difference.

This is a problem with AI articles on science. They skim other AI articles and repeat without bringing all the important facts with them. Then we get dozens of results for one claim about science, with only maybe one or two original sources.

Then the idea spreads through reddit or whatever forum you prefer.

We know trees share resources, that they have been demonstrated to signal pain and danger to other plants, that they signal food availability to pollinators via electromagnetic fields. We have had hard evidence for all of this.

[โ€“] sir_pronoun@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yes? Hard evidence? Where?