Historically, the idea that science is meaningful and philosophy isn't has been a big contributor to it, though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Scientific Facts are Social Constructs" - is this true?
- Thread starter gfxtwin
- Start date
Historically, the idea that science is meaningful and philosophy isn't has been a big contributor to it, though.
I guess I could have been more specific, though I think what I said was pretty clear. I wasn't saying you never in your life looked up the definition of fact. That would be a stupid claim. I was saying posting a hyperlink on GAF was not looking up the definition of the word, which it clearly isn't. You may have looked it up first, but you were doing something different in posting it. It doesn't take a genius to understand what you were actually doing in that action. That is the action I was talking about.
I mean if you were actually saying that posting that link was you looking it up you are clearly incorrect. If you were just talking about another thing you did then it's kind of a random non-sequitur.
Okay. I'm not concerned with that. You then did somethings after that. Those are the things I'm calling out.
How about the gamut of scientific knowledge that has been eventually disproven over the centuries?
It's not science, I absolutely can tell you that. Nor is it available to us mortals. Look up epistemology and even the attempt to define knowledge is a difficult problem, and how Gettier's cases ruin everything. But I will emphasize, just because we don't have the capital T truth does not make mean it is pointless to obtain a good approximation of knowledge.
Imperfected
Member
I've only really run into the problem is Psychology classes, where you still have a lot of "soft" skills professors running around who seem like they're more interested in trying to validate themselves than actually staying current and useful on their information. For them, they seem to be pushing the narrative of "there are no right or wrong answers" as a self-defense mechanism because they don't actually have most of the right answers and are too lazy to learn them.
RedSparrows
Member
Invent me a time machine to go back and 'understand' history.
Then invent me an anthropological framing device that allows me to empathise fully with an individual back in time. Wipe my mind clear so I have no distorting views.
Then invent me a computer into which I can feed every single strand of cultural, social and political meaning generated and grasped by a person in time, and have it explained in simple terms.
I'll be waiting, cheers. Would make my life a lot easier.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Would you agree that a point of confusion here is that some people are talking about the absolute value of a certain thing, while others are talking about the axiomatic definition of a thing, and that a lot of us are condescendingly assuming that the others don't know that based on the inevitable disagreements that occur when discussing incomparable parameters?
Really? This seems a lot like the opposite of formalism to me,
and then you dismiss everything that disagrees with that as "contrarianism".
RedSparrows
Member
I'd frame it more as 'science' was used at points (e.g. Nazi use of eugenics) to justify morally diabolical action. But that appropriation of science is not born simply out of science. It was born out of romanticism also, for example. People, as we know to our cost/delight, pick ideas and tools that they can justify to themselves by appeals to higher virtues. Those virtues are explained in philosophy.
Why? Like this is a massive assertion without any justification at all.
You realize that experiments cannot get at all the things we might want to learn and think about right? You realize that your entire assertion here rests on principles that fundamentally cannot be shown through experimentation right?
excelsiorlef
Member
Sure... I guess?
I just hope that's not a science class.
Generally no. But I'm not sure it was ever really true that most science majors read it. It's generally read by philosophy, history, sociology, and anthropology students though.
That's not what's going on here. The difference isn't only a difference in arbitrary semantics. It's that a certain set of semantics leads to a system that is not internally consistent.
hey_monkey
Banned
The modern era is marked by "science" built from testing and processes and hypothesis that were as often later proven "wrong" as "right." Because these thinkers often lacked in scope, space, equipment, view, etc., etc. But they were certain they were producing knowledge - which is (related to) that thing we so often consider fact, isn't it?
nelsonroyale
Member
I think many scientists don't even study the history of science...At least before PhD level.
pirateluigi
Member
That's a damn shame. We did read it in my undergrad work, but my degree was in anthropology.
Given that we can't really comprehend absolute values without viewing it through an axiomatic lens, taking a stance towards absolutism is effectively futile. Our brains don't work like that.
Raven117
Member
That is not what that phrase is getting at, and judging from your post above, I think you know that.
Ah I see, yeah you're right - I just quickly posted the link after I read it because I was on hold on the phone and the CSR came back on the line. Essentially that post should have read: "Here's the definition I found and the one that I typically think of when I hear the word "fact" - I see facts and beliefs as related, but not interchangeable. Feel free to link me to some definitions that are differing"
The difference isn't that philosophers make ideas and scientists discover facts, it's that philosophy is critically reflexive. Science should be too, but in increasingly discarding, especially amongst lay people, its philosophical framework and buttress it loses sight of that.
Maybe this has already been mentioned but lots of these intro college courses will present various influential frameworks within their disciplines. Just because this is on a slide in some college classroom doesn't mean the professor necessarily believes this or is trying to indoctrinate students.
I remember learning about Freud in college and some students thinking it was broadly accepted psychological theory.
I remember learning about Freud in college and some students thinking it was broadly accepted psychological theory.
The vast majority of scientists never seriously study the history or philosophy of science. This includes the PhD level.
It's a good book, but I think the real shame is that scientists increasingly do not engage with any sort of humanistic or social scientific examination of science.
This is true. Some sets of agreed upon "facts" do a better job of predicting and providing control over the natural world than others, and the "facts" generally grouped as "scientific facts" are clearly the best at this. But that doesn't mean that any set of "scientific facts" should be considered as Objective Truth, whatever that means. For instance, someone citing evolution should consider that the theory of evolution is not a "fact" so much as it is a framework for housing a massive network of interrelated propositions. Any individual claim in that framework may be true or false, more or less controversial within the field, etc. So it is not that simple.
This is the sad truth.
This is the sad truth.
Hari Seldon
Member
Yeah I worded that incorrectly. If you are saying that science is a social construct, that implies that different cultures come up with different science, correct? I think we all agree on this. Obviously most of the soft sciences easily are social constructs, as many cultures have different competing but unprovable assertions regarding psychology or even Human Evolution.
For me to believe that science is a social construct, I want to see another culture with provable with experiment science that is somehow fundamentally different from the equivalent provable with experiment science that we have.
I want to see a culture with working radios based on Bob's Laws of Electromagnetic which are fundamentally different than Max's. And not just the same theory but more generalized (i.e. Einstein vs Newton regarding gravity).
King Tubby
Member
The contrarianism I'm referring to is more of the bong rip Terryology variety. What I mean by swapping the meaning of the glyphs is an acknowledgement of formalism more than a derision.
nelsonroyale
Member
Yeah, that is a damn shame. I think a philosophy/history of science module should be required for all STEM undergrads.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
I know full well that science changes over the course of time, and that certain types of sciences are indeed based on mysticisms that exYle brought up, so I dont understand the acerbic reaction you have towards my statement. I agree that science nor philosophy are fields that I have a genuine interest on, so I was writing with the societal connotations of real science as defined by contemporary thought, such as the existence of global warming. If Im not being well-reasoned or well-informed enough to participate in the discourse, then I agree, but I dont think baring your fangs at my statement and expecting me to be incredibly well informed and read on complex philosophical and scientific texts would amount to anything much other than fishing for arguments.
If your goal is to inform me that, yes, science changes over time and new findings lead to new theories, then I understand that.
MetaCircular
Member
Great post!
That is surprising, I've read into these things and I'm an architect. I didn't think the scientific community is still so resolutely positivist, do they think these kind of thinking undermine their position or contaminate their idea of science somehow? It is similar in other professions as well, some tend to regress into the core knowledge of their fields.
Hari Seldon
Member
Yeah this is probably too harsh lol. I meant it in the narrow context of a conjecture that can be proven via experiment is more useful than one that cannot. For example, anyone high on acid can come up with a theory of the universe, but unless you can prove that it is correct it is pretty useless lol. Even hardcore mathematical physics like String Theory falls into this. The theory is pretty damn useless in my eyes until it can make a prediction that can be proven. Otherwise it is just fancy math and nothing else.
Cymbal Head
Banned
I am loving this retort that "I won't accept your critique of science until you can validate it according to the norms of science."
This is unfortunate but not surprising. My thoughts on this are really inchoate, but I sort of wish we hadn't lost the distinction between the land-grant/A&M model of education and the liberal arts model. Different groups of people have very different ideas (none of them wrong) about the purpose of higher education.
This is unfortunate but not surprising. My thoughts on this are really inchoate, but I sort of wish we hadn't lost the distinction between the land-grant/A&M model of education and the liberal arts model. Different groups of people have very different ideas (none of them wrong) about the purpose of higher education.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
If anyone wants to make a mega post detailing the different definitions and nuances of social construct and the different types of sciences that fall under the umbrella of being a social construct, then that would be well-appreciated.
Thus far, I understand that accepted scientific definitions changing over time makes the scientific facts a social construct, which is something Im in agreement with.
What I dont understand is: why label science as a whole as purely socially constructed when science itself has a self-correcting empirical methodology?
Thus far, I understand that accepted scientific definitions changing over time makes the scientific facts a social construct, which is something Im in agreement with.
What I dont understand is: why label science as a whole as purely socially constructed when science itself has a self-correcting empirical methodology?
I teach a required history of science class for STEM majors seeking a specific extra qualification. They get a survey at the start of the class and another 5 or 6 weeks in. At the start it's generally 95% of students who say that Science exists outside of people doing it, by the second survey it's only about 50%, and most students will acknowledge that even if they disagree with seeing science as a social construct it is at least valid.
I'm not seeing anyone putting social sciences above science. I'm seeing people say everything but science is pointless, and other people saying that science is social. The later doesn't diminish science in any way.
Your statement was calling something garbage. Are you really that surprised you got a negative response? Your comment was hardly value neutral...
If you had said "I disagree that science is a social construct" you would not have received those responses. I honestly am shocked that you cannot see that yourself.
Karsticles
Member
Everything is inherently subjective because it arises out of us, the subjects.
The claim of objectivity is to understand an objects inherent properties outside of the realm of human senses and experience. This is inherently impossible, as even notions of "object" and "property" are confined within human sensibility. We are permanently contained within ourselves.
However, this is not a strike against science unless one thinks science has to be objective to be superior to other approaches to understanding the world. Yes, science is a social construct. Social constructs are not inherently errant, but at some point people came to treat them as such. "Race is just a social construct" - and? Everything is a social construct. The statement is not particularly illuminating on its own.
What science has over every other way of thinking is this: it creates standards of mutual measurement and communicability. To state the temperature of an object is not an objective claim - it is a subjective one. But we have methods so that any other human can attempt to take a temperature reading and receive the same proximal subjective experience. That is the value of science - it does not automatically fall to the same level of pseudosciences like alternative medicine directly as a result of becoming "subjective".
The claim of objectivity is to understand an objects inherent properties outside of the realm of human senses and experience. This is inherently impossible, as even notions of "object" and "property" are confined within human sensibility. We are permanently contained within ourselves.
However, this is not a strike against science unless one thinks science has to be objective to be superior to other approaches to understanding the world. Yes, science is a social construct. Social constructs are not inherently errant, but at some point people came to treat them as such. "Race is just a social construct" - and? Everything is a social construct. The statement is not particularly illuminating on its own.
What science has over every other way of thinking is this: it creates standards of mutual measurement and communicability. To state the temperature of an object is not an objective claim - it is a subjective one. But we have methods so that any other human can attempt to take a temperature reading and receive the same proximal subjective experience. That is the value of science - it does not automatically fall to the same level of pseudosciences like alternative medicine directly as a result of becoming "subjective".
flounderingsomewhat
Neo Member
I'd imagine these books would be on the course reading list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_Life
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_and_the_Air-Pump
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Making_Natural_Knowledge.html?id=ttE8AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechnoFeminism
Along with a million others from the Strong Programme, ANT theorists, and so on. And this is the more sociological stuff, the tip of the epistemological iceberg really. Is science an old fashioned post-reformation revalatory, or is it a system for inscribing truth values, or something else entirely.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_Life
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_and_the_Air-Pump
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Making_Natural_Knowledge.html?id=ttE8AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechnoFeminism
Along with a million others from the Strong Programme, ANT theorists, and so on. And this is the more sociological stuff, the tip of the epistemological iceberg really. Is science an old fashioned post-reformation revalatory, or is it a system for inscribing truth values, or something else entirely.
Well, the opinion you put forth was hyperbolic and intense. Actual garbage. That generally results in a similarly intense response.
The trick the original twitter user is pulling is to present the phrase social construct out of context enough that they can say hey, look, academics are full of shit. They arent even paying attention to what their professor is saying; they have been prepped to think this concept is bullshit and took a photo to try to shame their professor instead of learning the argument being made.
Social construct doesnt mean false. Recognizing that what we recognize as science is affected by the society it is practiced within is very important. Its not just that science changes over time. Its that what achieves critical mass as indisputable facts is also subject to what society will allow; there are plenty of ideas that have the weight of decades of research that are just too controversial for society to accept as indisputable facts. Hell, climate change, evolution, vaccines... all things that in wider society are considered science facts or fiction based on social norms.
The concept of social construction is not one that invalidates the idea of facts, it is one that illuminates how facts come to be accepted as facts.
And thats why its not actual garbage
And where did that methodology come from?
Excellent recommendations, well I don't know the last book, but that's not going to get through to people here. I've beaten that drum here many times, especially Leviathan and the Air Pump. The problem is people first have to see this understanding as at least somewhat valid before they will actually commit to learning about it. Calling it actual garbage and dismissing everything but experimentation is not a good start.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Thats fair.
Thats why I went back and qualified exactly what I meant when I posted that. If someone were to tell me that global warming didnt exist, then Id call them garbage. If someone were to tell me that gravity didnt exist, then Id call them garbage.
Clearly Im making gross oversimplifications of the rationale, so Im asking to be educated so I can understand and have a baseline understanding of the nuance behind the subject.
I see. Obviously the context of social construct was so far removed from the screenshot itself that it led me to conflate fake with social construct. I see way too many alt-right nonsense about social constructs that it clouded my perception.
Thank you.
If your original post was not designed to incense, then your intentions have mismatched your actions.
You're not expected or required to have advanced knowledge of these topics. But if you enter a discussion on said topics with a dismissive tone, then I don't think it's unfair that you were, in turn, dismissed.
As an anthropologist working in a STEM field this whole thread amuses me greatly.
1. Obviously on some level scientific facts are social constructs. Science is a human social enterprise which seeks to create 'facts' to best describe the natural world. Sometimes these facts are right, sometimes they eventually get proven wrong and superceded by better facts. Sometimes (as with Newtonian physics), they retain great usefulness but do not accurately portray reality. Sometimes, they do seem to be perfect descriptions of reality. Great. Any statement is still a social construct whether right or wrong.
2. It is especially important to know this as a scientist. All ideas can be challenged, you simply can't do science if you start treating facts as holy cows, that, in itself, is profoundly unscientific. That does not mean you throw everything out because it's 'all made up'. Everything stands or falls on the basis of evidence.
3. Take the case of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin for instance. She was the first to discover that the sun was primarily made of hydrogen and helium. The evidence was clear, but she was persuaded not to publish this as she was a student, a woman, and this was at odds with general scientific belief at the time. This 'information' did not become a scientific 'fact' until 4 years later when it was eventually discovered again by a senior male researcher. Now, whatever you think of the process by which research becomes accepted as fact, it not apolitical or asocial.
4. You don't have to agree with a concept to learn about it! This isn't something a professor just 'made up'. We're taking about social constructivism, postmodernism, and fundamental tenets of STS. Any lecturer would be entirely remiss to leave out massive and influential philosophical movements in a class such as this just because some people don't like the idea. There are huge, often contradictory, schools of thought in a subject area that straddles everything from genetics and neuroscience, to politics and philosophy. You don't just leave stuff out because it's no longer fashionable. If you want to disagree with something you should do so from an informed perspective, not one of ignorance.
1. Obviously on some level scientific facts are social constructs. Science is a human social enterprise which seeks to create 'facts' to best describe the natural world. Sometimes these facts are right, sometimes they eventually get proven wrong and superceded by better facts. Sometimes (as with Newtonian physics), they retain great usefulness but do not accurately portray reality. Sometimes, they do seem to be perfect descriptions of reality. Great. Any statement is still a social construct whether right or wrong.
2. It is especially important to know this as a scientist. All ideas can be challenged, you simply can't do science if you start treating facts as holy cows, that, in itself, is profoundly unscientific. That does not mean you throw everything out because it's 'all made up'. Everything stands or falls on the basis of evidence.
3. Take the case of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin for instance. She was the first to discover that the sun was primarily made of hydrogen and helium. The evidence was clear, but she was persuaded not to publish this as she was a student, a woman, and this was at odds with general scientific belief at the time. This 'information' did not become a scientific 'fact' until 4 years later when it was eventually discovered again by a senior male researcher. Now, whatever you think of the process by which research becomes accepted as fact, it not apolitical or asocial.
4. You don't have to agree with a concept to learn about it! This isn't something a professor just 'made up'. We're taking about social constructivism, postmodernism, and fundamental tenets of STS. Any lecturer would be entirely remiss to leave out massive and influential philosophical movements in a class such as this just because some people don't like the idea. There are huge, often contradictory, schools of thought in a subject area that straddles everything from genetics and neuroscience, to politics and philosophy. You don't just leave stuff out because it's no longer fashionable. If you want to disagree with something you should do so from an informed perspective, not one of ignorance.
I don't know if I agree, they are fundamentally different sorts of knowledge and should be understood as qualitatively different. The ideas that the English Civil War came about partially because of a decline in the authority of the aristocracy, that math fundamentally cannot have a single unified set of axioms, that pi is transcendental, that humans take 9 months to gestate, and that E=Mc^2 are all just different. None is abstractly better or worse than the others. That's a weird, and pointless!, game to play.
The problem with theoretical physics is different, and theoretical physics is not analogous to Economics, History, Philosophy, or Comparative literature.
I think the key issue with that is the alt-right uses the word to diminish the thing it's being applied to. People in this thread aren't doing that. I'd say most people in this thread are arguing that all conceptions are social constructed, because all conceptions are created by a specific subjectivity and ones social context will always be quite impactful on their subjectivity.
I'm also not sure this is unfashionable. I'd say most Historians, Anthropologists, and Sociologists of Science hold a lot of ideas from the SSK even if they are not outright SSKers themselves.
It depends what the meaning is here. If we are talking about Scientific facts and the authority we as a society we ascribe to them then yeah, they are something of a social construct. If its saying the basis of science is just what society dictates it be well then obviously not.
Like others have said more context is needed here but Im sure the rational skeptic community (TM) have said as much already...
Like others have said more context is needed here but Im sure the rational skeptic community (TM) have said as much already...
Jacksinthe
Banned
Never in any eternity. Never ever. That's absurd.
Scientific facts are facts. That's it. Consensus is what happens when you have 90 of one and 10 of the next but there is no 100% repeatable result that can be measured and quantified time and again but it's "close enough".
Consensus seeks to agree on a direction and is not considered Science Fact.
E:
There is a consensus in the scientific community that the universe is probably teeming with life, but it's not fact as it hasn't been proven yet.
There is obviously some consensus on what is considered a fact (or in how to arrive to facts), hence when somebody presents their conclusion we say they are facts.
There needs to be a consensus in what is a "fact" for sure.