this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
1420 points (97.7% liked)

Science Memes

14312 readers
1799 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
[–] ninja@lemmy.world 269 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 50 points 1 week ago (4 children)

That is something I found weird, too. Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing!

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Technically, I think they're different. Flammable means that it can be lit on fire, like wood or something. Whereas inflammable means it can catch fire on its own, like gas, for example.

Edit: after some googling, it appears that my source was shit and should be disregarded. They do indeed appear to be synonyms. And also, I was thinking of gasoline. I think I was thinking of the "gas pedal" and that threw me off.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

Synonyms, true synonyms. No real difference between them (except don't use inflammable in safety situations, for above reasons)

[–] glups@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

Credit to you for the self-correction though

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

saying that "gas" is able to catch fire on its own is stretching it :) A gas mix typically still needs a spark, unlike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant <- that stuff can "catch fire" on its own. But even there - it needs to be mixed, so technically, one component requires the other to ignite.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Yeah, my bad, shit example.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It makes more sense if you think of it as enflammable. Indent and indebted at examples of this "in-" prefix. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/flammable-or-inflammable

[–] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

If you want to keep things crystal clear, choose flammable when you are referring to something that catches fire and burns easily, and use the relatively recent nonflammable when referring to something that doesn't catch fire and burn easily. Inflammable is just likely to enflame confusion.

The people at Merriam are alright 👌

United States education system

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Flammable isn't a word.

Just Americans got confused by it so it became a word.

[–] Hexarei@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

A word made for stupid people, yes.