this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1722 points (96.6% liked)

Science Memes

16030 readers
2728 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
[–] Taalnazi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Except that she has the relevant expertise, and therefore this does not apply.

If we analyse it critically, there are six questions we can ask:

Expertise: How credible is the authority as a expert source?
Field: Is the authority an expert in a field relevant to the assertion?
Opinion: What does the authority assert that implies the assertion?
Trustworthiness: Is the expert personally reliable as a source?
Consistency: Is the assertion consistent with what other experts assert?
Backup evidence: Is the expert's assertion based on evidence?

And on these regards we can say: she is credible, an expert in said field of genomics, and asserts that XX can be cis men too and vice versa; and she indeed is trustworthy, her assertions being consistent. Plenty of evidence to look it up.