How soon before someone is citing this article as evidence? π©
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
110 points (84.4% liked)
Science Memes
15807 readers
2252 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
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !reptiles and [email protected]
Physical Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !self [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Referencing this parody as if it's a serious study should be ground the rejection or retraction.
I wonder if journals and reviewers have tools to help detect fake and/or retracted study in references. Some already screen for the phrase "vegetative electron microscopy".
This evidence is certainly in contrast to those who believe, based on the writings of Charles Dickens alone, that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
π€£ this writer is genius
I read through that entire thing, saw Charles, and just skipped right over it. That's perfect though.
Weβre expected to believe that the peacocks personally recounted their lineage? In English? I feel like the author is just making things up at that point.
Well after these peacocks were crushed by a piano, they might have been unable to recount anything at all.
I dunno, but I feel like the author might have taken some creative liberties here...
At first I thought it was satire, but when I saw the writer had the scientific PokΓ©dex entries I knew it was legit
I was tired of being a Darwinist. Now I follow the writings of Dickens; I'm a Dickhead.
You got me. This one is too good.
The first tell was the author using the first person, and the next tell was the piano falling.
2 Miami-Dade College, Kendall, FL, USA Department of Fictional Geology
Thankful I saw that first, very relieved.
I only read the abstract. So I missed the piano falling part entirely.
There are pokΓ©dex entry # for fossils!
That is exactly what clued me in.
βI first went about the humane capture of the wildlife of C-100. A few peacocks were caught with bear traps, an iguana was captured via a falling piano,Β and a peacock bass was shot in the face with a shotgun, all in line with the standards set by the Florida Constitution [3].β
You missed the pokedex entries too!
My fave part was the expired crispr kits, arbitrarily cut off at desired date.
So this is obviously satire but reading this it just sounded way too close to current reality for comfort.
I know that parts of the document are acme levels over the top but other parts sincerely read as if written by your average Maga idiot
Poeβs Law.
The inclusion of PokΓ©dex Entry numbers is great.
Also, I like the sources cited for the paper. One of them is "Pigeon-Elephant Theory: the real origin of humans β Journal of Astrological Big Data Ecology by B McGraw"
Is there money in writing crap "research" papers like this?
I would be fine doing this under a pseudonym. But I know UFO researchers really have to hustle a ton. So maybe not?
People also do this to take the piss out of a junk journal. Usually ones that let anything through
Ooooohhhh... That's a thing? Let me guess, I have to pay to publish my ChatGPT-authored "research" proving that cats are actually aliens?
I have no idea, but I am guessing the religious right pays handsomely for anything "scientific" which supports their absolutely asinine beliefs.
I first went about the humane capture of the wildlife of C-100. A few peacocks were caught with bear traps, an iguana was captured via a falling piano, and a peacock bass was shot in the face with a shotgun, all in line with the standards set by the Florida Constitution [3].
Truly gold.
Edit: Didn't realize this was Immaterial Science - my favorite is the FUPLC-NMR-CE6-GC-IR-ICP-MS-MS-MS-MS (pdf warning)
Clicked thinking it was legit. Good find OP!
Thanks!
Only a few bites because people, understandably, aren't biting that headline.
Share a screenshot of the article instead and they'll be all over it.
Take that creationists, 6001 proves God couldn't have done it