this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
496 points (95.4% liked)
Science Memes
17245 readers
525 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
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- 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
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Okay look, some of the math I do on a daily basis is like 5 levels above basic addition (it looks like I've written a whole ass sentences of gibberish) but like what if they changed it? I'd rather be sure that 2+2 still equals 4 than be wrong and the thing I'm working on ends up making expensive sounds.
There's also just removing the cognitive load of having to process this information. You're allowed to look up the answer (that's what a calculator and the slide rule do).
Using the tools you have to speed up your work doesn't make you a worse engineer than those in the past. You're building off their work so you don't have to constantly literally reinvent the wheel.
Yup. If I'm not ballparking, all math goes through a calculator. It's already there, and I'm already using it. "Trust, but verify".
I am guessing you are an engineer of some sort.
Engineer of wide surfaces - also known as a cleaner.
I'm a Cognitive Developmental Transportation Engineer ... aka school bus driver.
You can't calculate 2+2 with a slide rule
ln(2) + ln(2) = ln(4)
Try with 3+3
Sorry, that's too complicated for me
Moves C index to 2 on the D scale
Moves indicating line to 2 on the C scale
Reads 4 on the D scale
Good thing 2+2 and 2*2 yield the same answer. Would have to bust out the addiator otherwise
abacus say what?
Yoy can use 2 normal rules to add/rest 2 numbers, but you can't do it in a slide rule with its logarithm scales. But luckily there are solutions out there
Well, but fails with 3+3, there an US engineer must use still an addiator. Nowadays it's easier with an pocket calculator.
But a pocket calculator doesn't get you nearly enough street cred these days
Well, even an iPhone has an calculator by default (maybe with an monthly fe)
But when I'm at the club with my friends and I pull out the Pickett model N600-ES speed rule to calculate the tip, all the eyes are on me
In my studies I used a doble side rule, the Faber-Castell 2/83 N Novo-Duplex, 31 scales, not so practical for the pocket (>38cm)
Maybe you can't
You could probably do log_10(10²×10²) instead?
It's the same as 2*2
Technology is invented for the sake of usage. It’s cultural calvinism that postulates that the „harder“ work is the „better“ work.
The issue is that the floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing.
Why is it that 8th graders in 1990 could do solid algebra and polynomials on paper and not need help? Nothing about the math has changed.
Slide rules do not do basic math, that's a poor comparison. People that did higher math on slide rules only used it for part of the problem dealing with logarithms, and that was a shorthand for larger approximation tables in books. That's necessary help. Solving for 2+2 is not. That's for little children that count on their fingers. If you're not in the "WTF?" camp, you're part of the problem.
Difficulty performing mental arithmetic doesn't necessarily correlate with poor overall intelligence or inability to grasp higher math concepts. In a world where we all have calculators in our pockets, there is no reason to bar someone from studies or a career involving higher mathematics simply for being neurologically atypical, nor to shame them for whichever coping strategies allow them to perform.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the most basic of math should be as basic as reading. Something that anyone can do themselves.
Do you honestly think that for the rest of your life every moment will let a calculator or ChatGPT help you have every interaction you have? People are perfectly capable of basic math.
He doesn't know that. None of the idiots advocating regressive imbecilism actually understand what they are talking about.
I'm not confident you're participating in good faith here but, on the off-chance you are; I'm not sure I take your point.
Can you substantiate your initial claim? "The floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing" seems too broad a statement to meaningfully defend.
Even if we assume you're talking about US 8th graders you'll have to be more specific. The US has seen degraded academic performance across the board but the degree varies by State (and often again by County).
What's "necessary help" is up for debate as well. There's a hint of something I can agree with here though. I do agree that, for certain vocations, it's important for individuals to have firm graps on the fundamentals. Programmers ought to be able to code without IDEs and Mathematicians work problems without calculators. I don't agree that the common use of good tools by those professionals results in the brain-drain bogeyman you seem to be shadow boxing.
What am I meant to be alarmed about, exactly?
No, I'm here in good faith.
Being alarmed, I suppose, would be the subjective assessment that this isn't too far off from all the cognitive decline correlated to excessive use of AI. It's an extrapolation, sure, but similar.
It's lovely to think that a phone will always be right on us all, for the rest of our lives. IRL, shit happens. Sometimes people just dug a calf out of a pond, their phone got soaked, and they still need to divide 250 lbs of fertilizer by 10 barrels and not be seized by indecision because there's not a cell phone around.