-
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
Absolutely not.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I kind of want to give the instructor the benefit of the doubt here and assume that this was a nuanced lecture about various worldviews and their deconstructions. It is an anthropology class, after all.
I have a strong feeling that the picture is taken out of context.
I have a strong feeling that the picture is taken out of context.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Sorry, but the idea of science being a social construct is actual garbage.
benicillin
Banned
With absolutely 0 context a slide from an anthropology class is like...
This is a bizarre thread, is what I'm trying to say.
This is a bizarre thread, is what I'm trying to say.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
This kind of statement is designed to get you to think and it's kinda true. What we consider scientific fact are based on consensus based on observation and experiment. That's a social construct.
And even what's widely accepted can and has been proven wrong with more research; that's usually the most interesting outcome, like new observations finding flaws in existing widely accepted theories.
And even what's widely accepted can and has been proven wrong with more research; that's usually the most interesting outcome, like new observations finding flaws in existing widely accepted theories.
ExplodingKetchup
Member
In the discipline of Anthropology, absolutely. It's known for racist conclusions taken as fact, so a level of skepticism is necessary.
Someone reacting to scientific facts are social constructs like that is probably going to fail the class.
Scientific Facts are about consensus. The consensus has been wrong, frequently, for most of human history. Theres plenty were still not sure of.
Taking a screenshot like this and flipping out about how absurd it is is intellectually dishonest; they arent even trying to understand the concept.
See, this is a good example of reacting without comprehending. Thats not whats being said here. Scientific facts are.
Also, learn about the history of science! Its full of obvious-to-us bullshit, and obvious-to-us bad methodology. People 50 years from now are going to look at stuff we commonly believe to be true and shake their heads. Learning to be skeptical of disciplines that claim to be skeptical is important. Look at the current crisis in reproducibility in peer-reviewed papers.
The scientific method is great, but were still irrational emotional social animals trying to convince each other weve got this figured out.
Scientific Facts are about consensus. The consensus has been wrong, frequently, for most of human history. Theres plenty were still not sure of.
Taking a screenshot like this and flipping out about how absurd it is is intellectually dishonest; they arent even trying to understand the concept.
See, this is a good example of reacting without comprehending. Thats not whats being said here. Scientific facts are.
Also, learn about the history of science! Its full of obvious-to-us bullshit, and obvious-to-us bad methodology. People 50 years from now are going to look at stuff we commonly believe to be true and shake their heads. Learning to be skeptical of disciplines that claim to be skeptical is important. Look at the current crisis in reproducibility in peer-reviewed papers.
The scientific method is great, but were still irrational emotional social animals trying to convince each other weve got this figured out.
There is an objective reality and science is our best tool to understand it. There are unchangeable truths that arent affected by subjective opinion. Post-modernism doesnt apply to everything.
That said, Scientific Facts (tm) are ALSO sociological constructs, because what is and what isnt accepted as Scientific Fact (tm) in a society very much differs between time, place and cultural contexts.
That said, Scientific Facts (tm) are ALSO sociological constructs, because what is and what isnt accepted as Scientific Fact (tm) in a society very much differs between time, place and cultural contexts.
Audioboxer
Member
Checkmate atheists saying the world isn't 6,000 years old and other assortments of people saying the world isn't flat.
lol
lol
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Science is a social construct, and I don't really see what it has to do with "emotion"? And it does not mean it's "false", by the way...
If anything, I think people react way too emotionally to sociological concepts they don't really grasp (and this is not just about the OP... mention something like "sexism" or "institutional racism" and a lot of people flip out as if those were terms used only as insults...).
If anything, I think people react way too emotionally to sociological concepts they don't really grasp (and this is not just about the OP... mention something like "sexism" or "institutional racism" and a lot of people flip out as if those were terms used only as insults...).
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Yep.
We're not infallible, something people forget about the sciences. We're constantly improving, and the only way to do so is to critique ourselves.
I think the professor is probably presenting an argument that isnt necessarily intended to become the core of the student's worldview. Its like how if you take philosophy classes you learn about a lot of different philosophies but that doesnt mean you're supposed to accept any of them in their entirety. In my experience, outlandish stuff at college was always about thought exercise and viewing familiar concepts from new angles.
Froyo Love
Banned
Horrific thread title that prejudges the already out-of-context slide title as a product of "emotion" rather than the reasoned, nuanced examination that other posters have already suggested.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Anthropology is a broad field than includes social and cultural aspects. So I imagine there's some amount of theory that's impossible to 100% objectively prove.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I'm looking for where "emotion before reason" is at all here, other than by the OP and the Twitter user they quoted.
Reminds me of shit I did as a libertarian college kid where I'd dismiss new information because I didn't have either the intellectual curiosity or the motivation to scrutinize my long-held beliefs. You're in a class to learn new shit, do that.
Reminds me of shit I did as a libertarian college kid where I'd dismiss new information because I didn't have either the intellectual curiosity or the motivation to scrutinize my long-held beliefs. You're in a class to learn new shit, do that.
Wyndstryker
Member
The results of science cannot be denied. The scientific process has proven itself.
However science isn't fact. It is merely an accumulation of observations based on our current knowledge. As our knowledge improves we make changes to our theories and laws and so forth.
Everything we know about this universe is entirely based on logical observations and analysis. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the knowledge itself.
Problem is when people change what the word "science" is supposed to mean.
However science isn't fact. It is merely an accumulation of observations based on our current knowledge. As our knowledge improves we make changes to our theories and laws and so forth.
Everything we know about this universe is entirely based on logical observations and analysis. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the knowledge itself.
Problem is when people change what the word "science" is supposed to mean.
Elaugaufein
Member
I agree.
And I'm generally of the opinion that econpmic motives are moving Universities away from the pursuit of truth.
Theres also tons of socially constructed facts in fields like archeology; notice that recent findings are showing that assumptions held as fact for decades about gender roles in ancient civilizations are being strongly revised in the light of new research. A lot of times, what should be objective fields spend decades or centuries get to the truth because they have to fight their way to defeat their own cultural/social norms clouding the conclusions.
Cymbal Head
Banned
This looks like a standard cultural anthropology class slide. Different disciplines have different sets of norms and ways of examining the world, which is why it's important to expose yourself to a variety of them. STEM supremacy can frequently get in the way of a robust education and lead to beliefs like "universities put feelings over facts."
Source: I took a cultural anthropology class and went on to major in science at a liberal arts school.
Source: I took a cultural anthropology class and went on to major in science at a liberal arts school.
The Albatross
Member
From a solipsistic perspective, sure, why not.
To answer your question though, universities have a wide variety of disciplines, yes, even disciplines that challenge your typical understanding of what people think is true and false. This doesn't make it emotional or unreasonable, though. There's also nothing unreasonable about emotion, emotion exists, it is reasonable.
To answer your question though, universities have a wide variety of disciplines, yes, even disciplines that challenge your typical understanding of what people think is true and false. This doesn't make it emotional or unreasonable, though. There's also nothing unreasonable about emotion, emotion exists, it is reasonable.
Yeah, I tweeted a comment asking more context. In addition to the photo he posted, he claims his professor is saying natural disasters are caused by humans as well. Seems like a stretch, I dunno, but I've heard people say similar illogical things when they let emotion get in the way of reason.
I took several anthropology classes yeas ago, but nothing at all like the slide in the OP was taught.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
The ineluctable modality of the visible
Some "natural" disasters are. The context matters enormously here and this sounds like someone who has their mind made up before they even bother to understand the arguemenfs being made.
Edit: to expand on this, is a dam failing in a storm a natural disaster? What about a city collapsing in an earthquake? What if a better understanding of storm patterns would have lead to a larger dam or a better, earlier understanding of earthquake resistant construction would have prevented any damage? Is nature responsible or man?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
What's really fun is googling "scientific facts are social constructs" and finding a whole bunch of the MAGA crowd crying about this.
This is stuff popularized by right-wing "snowflakes" and scared people who don't want to learn new information from a different perspective than their own.
This is stuff popularized by right-wing "snowflakes" and scared people who don't want to learn new information from a different perspective than their own.
I have a feeling dude just straight up isn't getting it and is lashing out in response.
benicillin
Banned
I'm really confused how anything here has to do with "emotion over reason." Like, what?
Science is a constructed system to try to find the truth to the best that we can understand it within the context of a positivistic universe. Positivism is a philosophy that cannot actually be proven. This is why a wide understanding of philosophy is useful.
In the context of an anthropology class this statement is also absolutely true.
In the context of an anthropology class this statement is also absolutely true.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Also I've always taken science to be the pursuit of a better understanding, not a pursuit for objectivity. If we just say "welp, that's that " then it's no different from operating on faith in my opinion. It should be "current understandings/evidence suggest [...]".
The Albatross
Member
Without any context, who knows what this is. It could be the opening slide of the OP's argument for why emotion is put before reason, and then they spend 30 slides challenging that notion.
Goober over here in the 4th row just lookin up long enough to use snapchat
Astral Dog
Member
this is dumb
And we're done.
Scientific facts are never actually facts, and knowing that is actually a pretty important part of being a scientist.
IYO are GAF posters putting emotion before reason?
IYO are GAF posters putting emotion before reason?
I agree there needs to be more context to get an idea of what the professor is getting at, but the statement being made on the slide sounds pretty dumb and there are instances of people who are anti-science and not very smart who say the exact same thing.
BlackDoomShadow
Member
Am I the only one who would like to know what the actual context of this quote was instead of just taking some right-wing chucklefuck at his word
Yes, this is basically it. Science is about discovery, not final certainty.
If we want to treat science, as a field, as a concept, like holy writ then phrenology should still be used because for a time scientists believed it.
There are dumb people who say this thing, so this other guy is probably also dumb! This argument is about the pursuit of pure reason and objective truths!
Admitting you don't know when you don't know is important obviously, but plenty of stuff (evolution, gravity, the periodic table) is pretty much on lock.
Cymbal Head
Banned
The flooding of hurricane Harvey was much worse than it could have been because Texas's zoning laws allowed for a ton of suburban sprawl and paving over wetland.
At any rate, there's no need to get worked up about it. If college isn't the place for nuanced discussions that challenge people's perceptions, I don't know where is.