Support NeoGAF

[Fhtagn]

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.

This is basic 101 stuff and it's only dumb when people handwave all of science "because it's a social construct." You have to be aware of the limits of your own understanding of the world to be able to do good science.

This is an out of context photo of a non-controversial statement. All of the nuance is lost. College is about nuance. This kid is gonna fail the class.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

"Scientific facts are social constructs"

Oh my god, no.

Look, I guess there are serious differences between approaches taken in anthropology and Physics departments, but that wouldn't fly in almost any part of any undergraduate lecture course in my building. The foundations that level of teaching are on are almost all solid enough that they're fact, period.

Once you're doing a master's project or higher, you start pushing the boundaries to actual debatable stuff, but things like the fundamental theories of electromagnetic behaviour, gravity, semiconductors, quantum mechanics, relativity (to the levels taught to undergraduates) are all fact, backed in most cases by rigorous experimental evidence and mathematics.

 

[Sheroking]

Scientific facts are never actually facts, and knowing that is actually a pretty important part of being a scientist.

Neither are they "social constructs".

They are partially understood, measurable realities of life. Positioning scientific theory or law as anything other than real is dangerous and irresponsible in a climate where the willfully ignorant will use ANY leash given to deny the reality of things.

 

[pigeon]

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.

What is gravity? How does it operate? What force does it apply, and how, and why?

 

[Acyl]

While many of the principles of nature are explained within the realm of science, models and theories are constantly being updated or proven wrong and replaced with better models.

E.g. protein binding sites used to be modeled as lock-and-key, now it is known that binding sites are dynamic and move to fit whatever comes in.

Science is a social construct though, yeah, fine. The periodic table is a list of atoms organized by their proton number. What if we decided to organize the periodic table differently, or based on different features? Science is a social construct that humans use with the scientific method to explain natural phenomenon like the sun rising in the morning, and to develop new technologies.

This thought process reminds me of Socrates and the "Allegory of the Cave".

 

[gfxtwin]

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!

k.

 

[Erheller]

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.

I mean, we really don't know that much about gravity

"Of these four forces, there's one we don't really understand." "Is it the weak force or the strong--" "It's gravity."

 

[Christine]

Neither are they "social constructs".

They are partially understood, measurable realities of life. Positioning scientific theory or law as anything other than real is dangerous and irresponsible in a climate where the willfully ignorant will use ANY leash given to deny the reality of things.

Social constructs aren't "other than real".

 

[Audioboxer]

Scientific facts are never actually facts, and knowing that is actually a pretty important part of being a scientist.

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!

What is gravity? How does it operate? What force does it apply, and how, and why?

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

 

[Cymbal Head]

A lot of the objections to this statement are based on a misunderstanding of it's intent. It's not saying "gravity doesn't exist unless you believe in it."

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

lol

At least we're getting...some kind of discussion out of it.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

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!

hahaha, just what I was thinking.

 

[Fhtagn]

Neither are they "social constructs".

They are partially understood, measurable realities of life. Positioning scientific theory or law as anything other than real is dangerous and irresponsible in a climate where the willfully ignorant will use ANY leash given to deny the reality of things.

It's precisely that people take concepts out of context, say "look at this bs they are peddling!" and people fall for it, over and over again, that is lettingbthe willfully ignorant deny the reality of things.

This tweet is an example of that. We can't know what the professor actually said to provide it context and nuance. This doofus just wants us riled up.

 

[TheOMan]

Sorry, but the idea of science being a social construct is actual garbage.

This right here.

 

[exYle]

Sorry, but the idea of science being a social construct is actual garbage.

Remember when no one believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth

Remember when no one believed black people were biologically inferior to white people

I'm so glad for the omnipresent impermeable objective truth of science

 

[NoblesseOblige]

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.

Human evolution as science understands it has changed in the last 20 years. In fact there are still people who argue for a Muliregional origin theory.

 

[Cocaloch]

Everything you think is a social construct unless you were raised by wolves, have not interacted with people, and don't know a language.

Sorry, but the idea of science being a social construct is actual garbage.

No it's not. How much, philosophy and history of science have you read?

 

[Messofanego]

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

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Sorry, but the idea of science being a social construct is actual garbage.

This right here.

Glad to see both of you elaborating on your points so the rest of us can learn anything at all from your posts!

 

[Sheroking]

Social constructs aren't "other than real".

The science behind everything would be important if human beings never existed and no consciousnesses ever developed in the universe.

Maybe the language and processes we use are social constructs, but the reality and meaning is not. This whole philosophical branch is bunk.

 

[Omegasquash]

I don't know what the professor is sharing. It's one slide from a deck that we're not getting the larger picture of OR the lecture on, and it's being characterized in under 140 characters.

People buying into this shit and retweeting it are using a social construct to present something as fact (the professor is saying this thing), but if you take a step back, understand that we don't have any further insight or context from 140 characters. Taking this snapshot, framed by opinion, and running with it as fact, isn't at all scientific.

I can get a sense of what the person who tweeted it is trying to say, but even then, sense that motive/intent is nothing more than our own assumptions.

I don't have time to read all the responses and follow up tweets made by the person that posted it. They could be a butthead, or the professor could be a butthead. I don't know. But I do believe that simply taking this tweet as statement of fact is wrong.

That the tweet exists is fact. What's behind it, I can't say for sure. Doesn't smell too good, whatever it is.

 

[pigeon]

Neither are they "social constructs".

They are partially understood, measurable realities of life.

They're hypothetical models we use to justify experimental results to ourselves and project future results.

A hundred years ago scientists were pretty convinced they had a line on objective reality. They were literally wrong about everything up to and including the fundamental makeup of the universe and the composition of the things they interact with every day.

Scientists today are not way better than scientists a hundred years ago. They have better tools and can construct better models. But it's only Panglossian bias that makes people think that people a hundred years ago were dumb and wrong about everything and we're going to end up being totally right about everything.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Lesath]

Scientific thought is dependent on the assumptions that there is order to the universe, and that we as human beings are able to perceive and understand it.

Since all of what we know is dependent on our perceptions, sure, science is a social construct.

 

[RRockman]

Is this today's thread backfire?

 

[Cocaloch]

I've considered make a thread, which would be better framed, on this topic, but GAF trends way too positivistic and is too invested in scientism for a really good discussion on the topic.

 

[Christine]

The science behind everything would be important if human beings never existed and no consciousnesses ever developed in the universe.

Maybe the language and processes we use are social constructs, but the reality and meaning is not.

Import is an assignation of value, a construct. Meaning is definitively also a construct.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Sorry, but the idea of science being a social construct is actual garbage.

This right here.

"I have no idea what "social construct" means but that doesn't stop me from reacting based on my emotions."

 

[Greedings]

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

There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.

Literally from the page you linked. The fact of gravity is incomplete. Our current model of gravity is taken as fact, because for most purposes it is, but it's not complete, therefore it's not "fact."

Just like hundreds of other scientific facts.

Science is constantly evolving and correcting itself. Access to new technology uncovers things we could never have possibly known previously (e.g. gravitation waves) and in some cases, we expected it, in others we didn't.

Scientific fact is a social construct.

 

[pigeon]

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

So basically you don't know what gravity is or how it operates, but luckily you have a reference site on the internet that you trust a lot.

Not a social construct though!

(Also, I like the part of the Wikipedia page that just lists all the stuff the current understanding of gravity doesn't actually explain or model.)

 

[Jasup]

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.

Yes, you know how people hear what they want to hear, and how two people in the same place, witnessing the same event can have pretty much different recollections about what was happening.

This is why eyewitness evidence is usually seen as very unreliable in court, and why anecdotal evidence is best left alone when making generalizations.

 

[sphagnum]

The science behind everything would be important if human beings never existed and no consciousnesses ever developed in the universe.

Maybe the language and processes we use are social constructs, but the reality and meaning is not. This whole philosophical branch is bunk.

We're talking about science as a field and pursuit of knowledge, not science as in the mechanistic way that things work within apparently real reality.

Which, again, itself goes back to positivism.

 

[TheOMan]

Remember when no one believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth

Remember when no one believed black people were biologically inferior to white people

I'm so glad for the omnipresent impermeable objective truth of science

Belief =/= Fact

 

[Darryl M R]

It's an interesting topic once you are done with your hot take on the quote.

 

[Sheroking]

They're hypothetical models we use to justify experimental results to ourselves and project future results.

A hundred years ago scientists were pretty convinced they had a line on objective reality. They were literally wrong about everything up to and including the fundamental makeup of the universe and the composition of the things they interact with every day.

Scientists today are not way better than scientists a hundred years ago. They have better tools and can construct better models. But it's only status quo bias that makes people think that people a hundred years ago were dumb and wrong about everything and we're going to end up being totally right about everything.

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.

 

[pigeon]

Belief =/= Fact

Lots of scientists insisted that it was scientific fact that black people were inferior to white people. Look at the shape of their craniums! Cmon!

 

[Cocaloch]

Belief =/= Fact

Define fact. A pretty common definition involves the word belief.

 

[soco]

This is an anthropology class. I have no idea what the professor's goal is, but there is value in looking at many things through the lens of being a social construct as we're talking about epistemological issues here.

Although I'm not sure what this has to do with the OPs title, and specifically about emotion.

 

[exYle]

Belief =/= Fact

Don't try and pull that bullshit. When those 'beliefs' were in vogue they were considered 'facts'. Look back upon this moment in 50 years and try to recall how many 'facts' that exist today that end being 'beliefs'.

 

[Hari Seldon]

"Scientific facts are social constructs"

Oh my god, no.

Look, I guess there are serious differences between approaches taken in anthropology and Physics departments, but that wouldn't fly in almost any part of any undergraduate lecture course in my building. The foundations that level of teaching are on are almost all solid enough that they're fact, period.

Once you're doing a master's project or higher, you start pushing the boundaries to actual debatable stuff, but things like the fundamental theories of electromagnetic behaviour, gravity, semiconductors, quantum mechanics, relativity (to the levels taught to undergraduates) are all fact, backed in most cases by rigorous experimental evidence and mathematics.

Yeah it depends on the discipline. Sciences where the knowledge pretty much begins and ends with un-testable theories is definitely influenced by social constructs (i.e. parts of anthropology). But science with hard truths that can be proven and tested in a repeatable manner is a much different story.

Edit: The error this professor made (although we don't know without context) is using the word "science" as it implies all of science.

 

[Kelsdesu]

First post nailed it.

 

[whatsinaname]

I can't decide based on this one slide without context. Look at "tobacco research" from the last century, or the food pyramid that we took for "science facts" for a long time, I don't know if that statement is incorrect in all situations.

 

[TheOMan]

Lots of scientists insisted that it was scientific fact that black people were inferior to white people. Look at the shape of their craniums! Cmon!

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact?s=ts

 

[pigeon]

We're talking about science as a field and pursuit of knowledge, not science as in the mechanistic way that things work within apparently real reality.

Which, again, itself goes back to positivism.

Side note: I'm poorly educated, but doesn't Godel kind of blow a big hole in positivism?

 

[Cocaloch]

The universe works like it works and it would whether or not human thought ever existed.

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.

Physics do not exist because we have some math to explain them.

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

 

[hey_monkey]

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.

I'm really confused how anything here has to do with "emotion over reason." Like, what?

I can only guess that the word "social" means emotion in this tweet, and so social construct means untrue (what is true, even) and so anything that needs interpreting becomes emotion, you snowflakes, geez.

Yes, context is needed, but I expect not for the intended audience, which is happy to discard facts, science, or nuance at will.

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

...that seems like half the thread, though?

 

[pigeon]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact?s=ts

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

You should definitely take some humanities classes.

 

[Fork on the Left]

Checkmate atheists saying the world isn't 6,000 years old and other assortments of people saying the world isn't flat.

lol

The epic science meme man here to put those snowflakes in their place.

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

 

[Omegasquash]

Scientific fact is a social construct.

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.

 

[collige]

Checkmate atheists saying the world isn't 6,000 years old and other assortments of people saying the world isn't flat.

lol

NDGT posts a dumb hot take on Twitter, news at 11.

 

[TheOMan]

Don't try and pull that bullshit. When those 'beliefs' were in vogue they were considered 'facts'. Look back upon this moment in 50 years and try to recall how many 'facts' that exist today that end being 'beliefs'.

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.