Support NeoGAF

[MetaCircular]

Strong academic pet peeve is the assault on the scientific method as a 'colonialist construct.' That other cultures have alternate ways of viewing the world that are 'just as valid.'

Recently saw an anthropology talk about how traditional medicine in India is under attack by 'Western' (i.e. science-based) medicine. The narrative was that the two were actually on equal footing but the west was winning out because of colonial power-dynamics.

No mention of the fact that traditional medicine might be losing out because it's actually complete bullshit. This seems like dangerous thinking to me.

 

[RedSparrows]

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.

This. This is a very quick snapshot of something that is (probably) very complex.

Good university education teaches you the layers of meaning and constructions humans exist in. A great university education also helps you find the tools you need to negotiate this chaos with confidence and security, without which you'd fall into lazy nihilism, conspiracy, and/or obscurantism.

That said, as above, the academy clashes with itself, all the time, as it should. This is ALWAYS ignored in 'are universities X' type chats.

Science IS a social construct, science IS our best conduit to whatever objective reality/ies exist.

 

[exYle]

Interpretations of fact are heavily influenced by social construct. Facts themselves are dependent upon our understanding of situation and evidence.

The facts, as we understand them according to research, are in fact, fact. That does not exclude them from the possibility of being misinterpreted, purposefully or otherwise.

And even then hey, it's all relative.

Sounds like our perceptions of reality are being constructed through some sort of social lens

 

[Darryl M R]

I agree with you. But to me, there is a difference between 'facts' and facts.

2+2 = 4. Is that a fact or is that a belief?

I'm not talking about "facts", I'm talking about cold hard absolute proven truths.

I don't think this class or presentation is arguing that 2+2 is not 4.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Science is a tool / methodology.

It is the best tool / methodology we as humans have for uncovering an understanding of reality that approaches but never fully realizes the objective truth.

 

[ibyea]

I think in some ways yeah, they are social constructs. We decide which measurement to care about, create a system of units for the measurement, build instruments to measure such quantity in whatever unit is convenient, decide how that measurement can be used for an analysis, and use a human made method called the scientific method that tries to study the universe in a way that tries to minimize human bias. That aspects of it is a social construct is, of course, not the same thing as saying none of it is real.

 

[opticalmace]

What is a social construct, anyway?

I checked on wiki but it still seems kinda vague. I'm not sure exactly what is being asserted in the image in the OP.

 

[Sheroking]

Sure, but this isn't germane, and it's the main reason people that haven't thought much about the topic are so fundementally confused.

The things that Physics looks at, i.e. the object of physics, would exist, but Physics would not.

How we view existence is irrelevant to existence. There is an objective reality and casting any kind of shade of the laws of the world as we know it is dangerous in a climate where science-denial is so strong.

Particularly in the name of pointless academic philosophy.

 

[Cocaloch]

In all seriousness, I can see where that slide is coming from in terms of ideas of consensus and whatnot but it definitely could've been worded better.

I mean it needs to be worded better because it's a complicated topic that needs a lot of critical thought and thus needs a lot more explanation, not because his diction and syntax were poor or anything. The issue is that people that have never critically thought about what science is jump to its "defense" if there is even a hint of any sort of actual examination of it.

There's no need to turn this into some kind of university leftist conspiracy.

I mean for hardcore positivists and proponents of scientism there absolutely is. The Humanities and Social Sciences are anathema to these two viewpoints.

 

[collige]

Strong academic pet peeve is the assault on the scientific method as a 'colonialist construct.' That other cultures have alternate ways of viewing the world that are 'just as valid.'

Recently saw an anthropology talk about how traditional medicine in India is under attack by 'Western' (i.e. science-based) medicine. The narrative was that the two were actually on equal footing but the west was winning out because of colonial power-dynamics.

No mention of the fact that traditional medicine might be losing out because it's actually complete bullshit. This seems like dangerous thinking to me.

I agree with this, but I also don't think that this was the topic of what was posted in the OP. Can't say for sure though cause hey, no context!

 

[Velocity:Design:Comfort]

I don't think that OP was made in good faith...

This.

OP and the trump alt righties sharing this have no understanding or comprehension of what this actually was trying to say. Also, it's a freakin anthro class - it's not in a presentation about nuclear physics.

 

[Fhtagn]

There's a non-trivial difference between misunderstanding or evolving ideas of reality and the notion that scientific theory and laws are social constructs (only important because of how we perceive them to be important).

The universe works like it works and it would whether or not human thought ever existed. Physics do not exist because we have some math to explain them.

Is physics really that, or is physics a human way to describe those patterns and forces, to the best of our understanding and in a consensus built via human social networks? Social networks, norms, mores, etc, evolved over centuries?

Saying that science facts are a social construct does not mean science facts are false, it just means that they achieve a state of “factness” by virtue of social agreement. Things being social constructs does not inherently invalidate them. Only people arguing in bad faith or with poor understanding think that the concept of social constructs means they aren’t necessarily true.

 

[pigeon]

I agree with you. But to me, there is a difference between 'facts' and facts.

2+2 = 4. Is that a fact or is that a belief?

I'm not talking about "facts", I'm talking about cold hard absolute proven truths.

Mathematical truisms are not facts. They are truisms.

The formula "2 + 2 = 4" is meaningless without coherent definitions of the terms in the formula. The accepted definitions of the terms in the formula are fixed in such a way that the formula is necessarily true. But calling that a fact is kind of an ontological misunderstanding.

 

[TheOMan]

Okay, so your argument here boils down to "things that are actually real, are actually real."

You should definitely take some humanities classes.

?

You said many definitions of fact include belief.

I provided you with the definition of fact from dictionary.com.

 

[Darryl M R]

I don't think that OP was made in good faith...

Agreed the "putting emotion before reason" without any context is telling.

 

[Lowmelody]

Like a wise man once said, faith is fact.

 

[ibyea]

Is physics really that, or is physics a human way to describe those patterns and forces, to the best of our understanding and in a consensus built via human social networks? Social networks, norms, mores, etc, evolved over centuries?

Saying that science facts are a social construct does not mean science facts are false, it just means that they achieve a state of “factness” by virtue of social agreement. Things being social constructs does not inherently invalidate them. Only people arguing in bad faith or with poor understanding think that the concept of social constructs means they aren’t necessarily true.

This is my perspective as well.

 

[BocoDragon]

Sounds to me like the professor was making a nuanced point about the evolving understanding of reality and how its shaped by society, and some neck bearded student went full anti-post-modernism on his ass.

 

[pigeon]

You said many definitions of fact include belief.

...no I didn't?

 

[RedSparrows]

I've somehow avoided watching It's Always Sunny for over a decade, and this image tells me that was a mistake.

Mac on science and religion, and the guys' reaction to it, is 100% gold.

 

[TheOMan]

Mathematical truisms are not facts. They are truisms.

Hmm - so your saying my understanding of what a fact is is incorrect?

(Also, I have taken many humanities classes - your assumption that I have not is based on my understanding of the word fact??)

 

[Nivash]

I agree with you. But to me, there is a difference between 'facts' and facts.

2+2 = 4. Is that a fact or is that a belief?

I'm not talking about "facts", I'm talking about cold hard absolute proven truths.

Our interpretations of facts are a bit different, that's all.

Funny thing you should mention that - it’s a convention, not a fact. You can’t ”measure” math. It’s not something that physically exists in the world. Rather, we use it to measure the world. It’s an abstract model for a complex reality.

2+2=3 could easily be true in a world where we decided that the result of II+II=IIII should be called ”3”.

You can even say that 2+2=4 is a ”belief” in that IIII should be represented as 4 and not 3, if you want to be edgy.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

It's actually not a bad example, as crazy as it sounds. We know the results of gravitational forces, and the directions they will act, absolutely, but that's not everything. There are a lot of unanswered questions about gravity, which I think was the point Pigeon was trying to make, for instance:

The other 3 of the 4 fundamental forces transmit force via the use of intermediate particles. Electromagnetism uses Photons, the Weak force uses W and Z bosons, and the strong force uses gluons.

But a similar particle hasn't been detected yet for Gravity. Given that unlike the others, gravitons in Quantum field theory are expected to be massless, or very very low mass compared to the others, they will be very very hard to detect, if not impossible. This is what part of the work that the Physics nobel prize this year is working towards. The award was for the detection of gravitational waves, which took two neutron stars colliding together to be detected (they measured about 10^-18m length perturbations or something nearly that ridiculous).

As it is, we don't yet know exactly how gravitational force is transmitted between different objects with mass.

 

[Cocaloch]

This is needlessly. You know what I mean.

No, it's not needless. It's the very core of why your thinking is problematic. It's vapid platonism.

How we view existence is irrelevant to existence. There is an objective reality and casting any kind of shade of the laws of the world as we know it is dangerous in this climate.

See, you've made the exact same mistake again, you're confusing Science with a social construct with reality doesn't exist. The reason you do that is because you're not separating some platonic idea of the outside world, from the activities of Humans trying to understand it. Saying Science is a social construct is not "casting any kind of shadow of the laws of the world" and your kneejerk jump to that is a massive problem.

Particularly in the name of pointless academic philosophy.

And boom. It comes out. Humanities and Social Sciences are nothing. "Science" must be protected.

 

[TheOMan]

...no I didn't?

My bad - it was the post below yours, apologies.

 

[Cocaloch]

Hmm - so your saying my understanding of what a fact is is incorrect?

(Also, I have taken many humanities classes - your assumption that I have not is based on my understanding of the word fact??)

Based on the fact that your go to for a definition of fact is uncritically linking to dictionary.com probably. That's not very humanistic of you.

My bad - it was the post below yours, apologies.

And that post said one of the most famous, "fact is justified true belief".

 

[Rentahamster]

I think we all need to get some terms straight as people are arguing about different things. Straight up scientific facts are different than the field of science and the scientific method which goes about observing, defining, and refining those facts. Also, the assertion that "we don't know 100% of everything about a particular topic == not a fact" is absurd and rhetorically useless.

 

[RedSparrows]

How we view existence is irrelevant to existence. There is an objective reality and casting any kind of shade of the laws of the world as we know it is dangerous in a climate where science-denial is so strong.

Particularly in the name of pointless academic philosophy.

To 'existence', yes.

To us? Not in any way, shape or form.

You leap to kinda implying the opposite of the latter without acknowledging it.

 

[Sheroking]

Is physics really that, or is physics a human way to describe those patterns and forces, to the best of our understanding and in a consensus built via human social networks?

The point is the "patterns and forces" exist and can be measured objectively, even if not to perfect understanding.

We understand that because something is a social construct (our entire communication system is, so our understanding of reality is) does not mean it is not real, but it does put into question the wholeness of it's truth or importance.

I'll say it again: it's pointless academic philosophy that takes a shot at something far, far more important - our regard of modern scientific theory as the guidebook to our existence, survival and thrival.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Is physics really that, or is physics a human way to describe those patterns and forces, to the best of our understanding and in a consensus built via human social networks? Social networks, norms, mores, etc, evolved over centuries?

Saying that science facts are a social construct does not mean science facts are false, it just means that they achieve a state of “factness” by virtue of social agreement. Things being social constructs does not inherently invalidate them. Only people arguing in bad faith or with poor understanding think that the concept of social constructs means they aren’t necessarily true.

Thank you. Hope this post will be quoted often, because there's a big misunderstanding of what "social construct" means (here and elsewhere).

 

[yanipheonu]

There is the very real problem that basically anything outside of the hardest facts are subject to subjectivity.

It's unfortunately part of our nature. Even the most stringent logical viewpoint can be subject to unconscious cultural assumptions. By virtue of having to use language, filled with cultural baggage, there are plenty of cultural constructs that would find their way into what is supposed to be objective science.

Reflexivity is the key. Everything needs to be questioned for its possible biases. Science is great, humans are flawed and prone to unconscious bias that need to be called out for.

A lot of this comes up in attempting to apply scientific knowledge to things involving humans and human behavior. Scientific method is great, but it's incredibly hard to be impartial when analyzing human behavior when you are, in fact, a human with human assumptions.

I love science. But the assumption of "the purity of science" is often unhelpful.

 

[Omegasquash]

Sounds like our perceptions of reality are being constructed through some sort of social lens

They can be, and frequently have been, yes.

Accepting "truths" as "facts forever and ever Amen" isn't scientific. Accepting that we understand X about something based on observation and research, etc., vs. calling it a "fact" is semantic.

"Magma is hot" is a fact relative to humans, for example. But if we're going to spend the day debating whether or not it's actually hot while it's coming at us, chances are that we're all going to die.

 

[TheOMan]

Is physics really that, or is physics a human way to describe those patterns and forces, to the best of our understanding and in a consensus built via human social networks? Social networks, norms, mores, etc, evolved over centuries?

Saying that science facts are a social construct does not mean science facts are false, it just means that they achieve a state of “factness” by virtue of social agreement. Things being social constructs does not inherently invalidate them. Only people arguing in bad faith or with poor understanding think that the concept of social constructs means they aren’t necessarily true.

I like this.

So, is a fact something that is true, or not? How can something be a fact and not be true?

 

[Sheroking]

And boom. It comes out. Humanities and Social Sciences are nothing. "Science" must be protected.

I've not hidden it.

The hard sciences are infinitely more important than the circle-jerk pseudo-sciences and pointless philosophical musings that matter very little outside of campus classrooms.

 

[exYle]

I agree with you. But to me, there is a difference between 'facts' and facts.

2+2 = 4. Is that a fact or is that a belief?

I'm not talking about "facts", I'm talking about cold hard absolute proven truths.

Our interpretations of facts are a bit different, that's all.

This is ultimately going to boil down to argument of semantics, but language is a social construct - which means math is as well.

Math has to follow its own internal rules. So yes, an interminable fact of math is that 2+2 = 4. The same rules of language dictates that B follows A in the Latin alphabet. But if there was ever a different species which happened to use the exact same symbols for numbers but with different values, then to them, 2+2 would not make 4.

Same deal with empirical science. We only don't know what's wrong and what's right yet. And the nature of science dictates that we never will. So science has to be a social construct.

 

[pigeon]

I've not hidden it.

The hard sciences are infinitely more important than the circle-jerk pseudo-sciences and pointless philosophical musings that matter very little outside of campus classrooms.

lol

 

[RedSparrows]

I've not hidden it.

The hard sciences are infinitely more important than the circle-jerk pseudo-sciences and pointless philosophical musings that matter very little outside of campus classrooms.

Jesus Christ. I'd argue, but fuck it, no point with that kind of enlightened attitude.

How scientific of you, btw, to acknowledge our sense of reality is a construct, and then say it doesn't matter. Mind boggled.

 

[Cocaloch]

I've not hidden it.

The hard sciences are infinitely more important than the circle-jerk pseudo-sciences and pointless philosophical musings that matter very little outside of campus classrooms.

This is honestly disgusting.

What are these pseudo sciences exactly? Science gains its legitimacy and meaning from the rest of thought.

"pointless philosophical musings" were the very origins of science.

This is why conversation is impossible. You've turned some childish conception of science, which you aren't even aware of, into some golden cow. Your views are a far greater threat to science than the Humanities and Social Sciences

 

[hey_monkey]

Strong academic pet peeve is the assault on the scientific method as a 'colonialist construct.' That other cultures have alternate ways of viewing the world that are 'just as valid.'

Recently saw an anthropology talk about how traditional medicine in India is under attack by 'Western' (i.e. science-based) medicine. The narrative was that the two were actually on equal footing but the west was winning out because of colonial power-dynamics.

No mention of the fact that traditional medicine might be losing out because it's actually complete bullshit. This seems like dangerous thinking to me.

For you or anyone else who's interested in exploring why this kind of discussion may be happening, Linda Tuhiwai Smith's Decolonizing Methodologies is a really interesting book. It requires some recalibration of thinking.

 

[pirateluigi]

I've not hidden it.

The hard sciences are infinitely more important than the circle-jerk pseudo-sciences and pointless philosophical musings that matter very little outside of campus classrooms.

Define "important"

Also, anthropology isn't a pseudo science, nor is it philosophy.

 

[Raven117]

Context matters.

Out of context and taken on its face, this is an atrocious affront to reasoned thought.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Social constructs aren't "other than real".

Well, of course. There's that old pithy/dismissive saying that goes "reality is what sticks around when you stop believing in it."

A lot of those are social constructs - things that go away if everyone stops believing in it, but not until. Money is a social construct, but the dollar bills in my billfold are definitely real, and definitely have value, until everyone stops agreeing that they do. The federal government is a social construct, and if everyone stopped believing in it, it would cease to exist, but until then defying it means men with guns are going to lock me up.

Intersubjective realities are definitely a thing, and definitely an important thing.

But I feel like most of the defenses of the slide attempt to elide the differences between objective, inter-subjective, and subjective truths. There are a lot of ways that you can reframe the statement that are pretty valuable - but all of them significantly change the meaning of the initial statement. Reality is what exists when we stop believing in it; gravity existed before Newton, and it will exist after everyone capable of comprehending Newton has died. The plain-text meaning of "Science is a social construct" is that this statement is false (or perhaps irrelevant), and I can't blame anyone for reading it as such.

You can say a bunch of things like "Science exists only in certain social structures that may compromise its results;" "we may be incapable of understanding how the social affects scientific discoveries, even in principle, and never look at it from a completely objective angle," "science is dependent on a vast superstructure of social, ideological, and intellectual presuppositions that are properly within the purview of sociology," and on and on are all reasonable restatements that have value.

But the initial statement is a troll; it is intended to provoke those deeper readings by saying something plainly and obviously absurd.

 

[King Tubby]

I feel like I need more context behind the OP image and what is meant by "social construct" here.

I've not hidden it.

The hard sciences are infinitely more important than the circle-jerk pseudo-sciences and pointless philosophical musings that matter very little outside of campus classrooms.

I'd say that the way society interprets, contextualizes, and implements scientific findings is of immense importance, even relative to hard sciences.

 

[ibyea]

I've not hidden it.

The hard sciences are infinitely more important than the circle-jerk pseudo-sciences and pointless philosophical musings that matter very little outside of campus classrooms.

You do realize the only reason science stands so strong on its foundation is because of these "pointless philosophical musings"?

 

[Stumpokapow]

I agree with you. But to me, there is a difference between 'facts' and facts.

2+2 = 4. Is that a fact or is that a belief?

An axiomatic "truth" under particular assumptions, like Peano's postulates. So, quite literally a fact only if you assume (believe) the axioms that underpin it. It does end up being a useful set of axioms for describing the empirical world though.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I agree with you. But to me, there is a difference between 'facts' and facts.

2+2 = 4. Is that a fact or is that a belief?

I'm not talking about "facts", I'm talking about cold hard absolute proven truths.

Our interpretations of facts are a bit different, that's all.

You realize that technically tomorrow if enough people decided that no in fact 2+2= 7 anyone who still thought it was 4 would eventually be looked down upon eh?

 

[exYle]

I've not hidden it.

The hard sciences are infinitely more important than the circle-jerk pseudo-sciences and pointless philosophical musings that matter very little outside of campus classrooms.

Lmao

 

[TheOMan]

Based on the fact that your go to for a definition of fact is uncritically linking to dictionary.com probably. That's not very humanistic of you.



And that post said one of the most famous, "face is justified true belief".

It is not humanistic to look up the definition of the word fact to see if I was mistaken?

What would have been a humanistic approach in your opinion?

 

[zeemumu]

If you want to get really, really nuts about it then pretty much all of reality is a social construct to keep you from going crazy with the realization that you may not know anything about the stuff that Rom the Vacuous Spider keeps hidden from you.

 

[Nivash]

I like this.

So, is a fact something that is true, or not? How can something be a fact and not be true?

”Hysteria is a real thing, and it’s caused by female fragility” was considered a settled ”fact” in early psychiatry for the most part.

This obviously wasn’t true. What was called ”hysteria” was a mishmash of genuine psychiatric diagnosis such as depression, anxiety, borderline disorder and several more - combined with somewhat of a fad among smaller groups of upper-class women to ”act hysterical” - as filtered through the underlying social context of the time. Simply put, the psychiatric community observed something they didn’t quite understand (but which fit their prejudices) and decided to label it as a fact.

That’s the problem. ”Facts” aren’t some magical thing floating around in the world. They’re whatever we decide is true, and a lot of the time we’re wrong.