Support NeoGAF

[More_Badass]

How is that not good discussion? We have people in this thread refuting "1 + 1 = 2" by saying essentially saying, "Well, how do we really know those two '1s' are equal?" We also have Stump in here saying that humans cause natural disasters because they live in places where natural disasters occur.

That wasn't what they were saying in regards to 1 + 1 = 2. They were saying that the objective reality of grouping a single object and single object is represented through social and mathematical constructs that are numbers and notations and such. Case in point, some civilizations didn't have the concept of zero.

And a correlation exists between fracking and earthquakes, so that other statement has merit as well

 

[Shake Appeal]

Epistemology has a lot of fun things to say about science, if you care to study it.

 

[wandering]

They aren't inferring that of their own accord. There are clear social reasons that people want to dismiss the social nature of science.

That’s true.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's definitely both. If anything, it's only a social construct when it's not your biological father.

An odd thing for someone going by Paracelsus to say. It's absolutely a social contract either way. Both the scientific conception, or scientific fact, of parentage is social as well as the cultural meaning in the word dad and mom. Fatherhood and Motherhood being obvious social categories.

What if I told you that the phrase "scientific facts are a social construct" is a social construct?

I highly doubt anyone who believes in the social construction of knowledge is unaware of this.

A fact within a fact leaves the whole world mind fucked

What?

 

[Ovid]

Using this definition:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/social-construct

You could argue that pretty much everything is a social construct. Trees are, because the category of trees was developed by society.

Someone else made a comment about reality also being something similar. With reality, it is possible that all of this is a figment of our imaginations or that we are actually in the matrix.
But there's no point in living like that.

Even if something is a social construct, that doesn't mean it doesn't have validity or importance.

Science is based on observable facts in our reality.
And scientific theories are the best explanation for the set of facts.

"The Matrix" (1999) -- 'Construct' Scenes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGZiLMGdCE0

 

[mavo]

Maybe i misunderstanding things because im a brainlet, but i don't see how saying science is a social construct means what Science says is a lie or that facts aren't really whats happening.

Look if you tell me the sky is blue i won't say the sky is not blue, i can see with my own eyes that the sky is motherfucking blue. But the way we say "oh the sky is definitely blue" was through social consensus, people started looking at the sky and everyone said the sky looked blue to them and somebody said it looked yellow and they burned him alive for being a daltonic freak. So for me there is definitely some social aspect to what we consider the "truth".

 

[collige]

How is that not good discussion? We have people in this thread refuting "1 + 1 = 2" by saying essentially saying, "Well, how do we really know those two '1s' are equal?" We also have Stump in here saying that humans cause natural disasters because they live in places where natural disasters occur.

So, no, I don't agree that the point I made wasn't good discussion. Yes, science is affected by human biases on an individual and societal level, but that doesn't mean there aren't facts, nor that they are socially constructed. It just means humans can be dumb.

Google tells me that a disaster is

a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life.
"159 people died in the disaster"

By definition, a natural event being a disaster is measured by it's effect on people (or animals I guess). Thus, human action, or lack thereof, can determine whether or not a particular event becomes a disaster or not.

 

[DopeyFish]

the scientific process is a social construct

the way we collect the data is a social construct

what science describes is not a social construct when it's a fact

 

[Cocaloch]

Maybe i misunderstanding things because im a brainlet, but i don't see how saying science is a social construct means what Science says is a lie or that facts aren't really whats happening.

It's not saying that at all. It's a cheap strawman set up so people can act indignant on the topic and also so they can assert that everyone who disagrees with their understanding is totally out of their minds. We've seen both in spades in this thread.

Look if you tell me the sky is blue i won't say the sky is not blue, i can see with my own eyes that the sky is motherfucking blue. But the way we say "oh the sky is definitely blue" was through social consensus, people started looking at the sky and everyone said the sky looked blue to them and somebody said it looked yellow and they burned him alive for being a daltonic freak. So for me there is definitely some social aspect to what we consider the "truth".

Right, and frankly this is really obvious. The framework that science isn't social requires a lot more overt steps, I wonder what could be driving these, than the one that claims it is.

 

[perfectchaos007]

This was the slippery slope many were afraid of. Please reject this idea!

 

[Shake Appeal]

the scientific process is a social construct

the way we collect the data is a social construct

what science describes is not a social construct when it's a fact

The difference between a "fact" and any other statement about our lived experience is one of degree rather than kind.

 

[Cocaloch]

This was the slippery slope many were afraid of. Please reject this idea!

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Thank you for your contribution.

You're welcome.

 

[Zeyphersan]

Maybe i misunderstanding things because im a brainlet, but i don't see how saying science is a social construct means what Science says is a lie or that facts aren't really whats happening.

Look if you tell me the sky is blue i won't say the sky is not blue, i can see with my own eyes that the sky is motherfucking blue. But the way we say "oh the sky is definitely blue" was through social consensus, people started looking at the sky and everyone said the sky looked blue to them and somebody said it looked yellow and they burned him alive for being a daltonic freak. So for me there is definitely some social aspect to what we consider the "truth".

To further this point:

http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/hoffman_01_13/

We may never know for sure, but one peculiar fact casts the mystery in an interesting light: there is no word for “blue” in ancient Greek.
Homer’s descriptions of color in The Iliad and The Odyssey, taken literally, paint an almost psychedelic landscape: in addition to the sea, sheep were also the color of wine; honey was green, as were the fear-filled faces of men; and the sky is often described as bronze.
It gets stranger. Not only was Homer’s palette limited to only five colors (metallics, black, white, yellow-green, and red), but a prominent philosopher even centuries later, Empedocles, believed that all color was limited to four categories: white/light, dark/black, red, and yellow. Xenophanes, another philosopher, described the rainbow as having but three bands of color: porphyra (dark purple), khloros, and erythros (red).

Blue certainly existed in the world, even if it was rare, and the Greeks must have stumbled across it occasionally even if they didn’t name it. But the thing is, if we don’t have a word for something, it turns out that to our perception—which becomes our construction of the universe—it might as well not exist. Specifically, neuroscience suggests that it might not just be “good or bad” for which “thinking makes it so,” but quite a lot of what we perceive.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Math is the only truth.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Math is the only truth.

until you divide by 0.
Or ask someone if 0.999 (repeating infinitely) is equal to 1

 

[pigeon]

To further this point:

http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/hoffman_01_13/

This is especially interesting because blue is one of the last colors to be distinguished in a developing language, and many languages today don’t distinguish it. For example, a Japanese person might say the sky is “ao” — which is the same word used for the color of apples, grass and traffic lights. So even the concept of blueness is in great part a social construct.

 

[Air]

Ah the thread title change. But yeah with any thinking it seems pretty obvious that scientific facts are social constructs, like everything else. This doesn't take away from the efficacy of science, but gives you a strong lens with which you can look through and better understand science

 

[exYle]

What if I told you that the phrase "scientific facts are a social construct" is a social construct? A fact within a fact leaves the whole world mind fucked.

You're goddamn right it is

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

Take a philosophy of science course if you want to understand the realist and anti-realist arguments of science. Not this sociology drivel.

until you divide by 0.
Or ask someone if 0.999 (repeating infinitely) is equal to 1

a != b iff there exists a number c such that a < c < b or b < c < a

 

[Cocaloch]

Take a philosophy of science course if you want to understand the realist and anti-realist arguments of science. Not this sociology drivel.

Oh yeah, that's the solution for philosophers. Scientists are throwing you under the bus, maybe if you throw Sociologists under the bus that'll fix the problem.

 

[Zeyphersan]

This is especially interesting because blue is one of the last colors to be distinguished in a developing language, and many languages today don’t distinguish it. For example, a Japanese person might say the sky is “ao” — which is the same word used for the color of apples, grass and traffic lights. So even the concept of blueness is in great part a social construct.

Yeah, cultures and colors is endlessly fascinating to me. Really takes a bite out of the whole idea that an object can be “objectively” something

 

[wandering]

Oh yeah, that's the solution for philosophers. Scientists are throwing you under the bus, maybe if you throw Sociologists under the bus that'll fix the problem.

Woo, Science Wars pt. 2!

 

[TheOMan]

Take a philosophy of science course if you want to understand the realist and anti-realist arguments of science. Not this sociology drivel.



a != b iff there exists a number c such that a < c < b or b < c < a

That's the good stuff right there.

 

[Cocaloch]

a != b iff there exists a number c such that a < c < b or b < c < a

This is merely convention, you're setting definitions for this to be true. That's important because those definitions help other things work, but don't act like this is some ingenious proof, and definitely don't act like this isn't social. See Timoty Gowers, Mathematics (Oxford, 2002). (60 if you want a page reference for a very specific refutation of what you're getting at)

That's the good stuff right there.

What?

 

[ibyea]

Take a philosophy of science course if you want to understand the realist and anti-realist arguments of science. Not this sociology drivel.

But we are not having a discussion purely about realism vs anti-realism though.

 

[FStubbs]

Reality is a social construct based on an agreed upon collective human perception of what we assume is an objective universe.

So really, it depends on the context, which is of course completely lacking in a single random tweet.

That's the thing, we don't agree on it.

 

[Cocaloch]

But we are not having a discussion purely about realism vs anti-realism though.

No you're wrong. Everything about sociology is clearly stupid. Certainly the SSK hasn't produced a lot of really important books in the last 30 years. No sir.

 

[MeatGrinder]

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.

Argh... evolution and gravity is a funny issue. Evolution has not been "observed", and gravity works in mysterious ways since it works one way with large objects and another way with small (atom sized) objects.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

That's the thing, we don't agree on it.

Yet regardless of that disagreement, objective reality remains unchanged. It doesn't care if life disagrees.

 

[Cocaloch]

Yet regardless of that disagreement, objective reality remains unchanged. It doesn't care if life disagrees.

And your ability to directly access that objective reality unmitigated by social understanding remains nonexistent.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Math is the only truth.

Graph theory is a major branch of mathematics that only exists because the most brilliant mathematician in history (to date) invented it to solve a local riddle meant to entertain children and drunks.

Math is as cultural as any of it.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

This is merely convention, you're setting definitions for this to be true. That's important because those definitions help other things work, but don't act like this is some ingenious proof, and definitely don't act like this isn't social. See Timoty Gowers, Mathematics (Oxford, 2002). (60 if you want a page reference for a very specific refutation of what you're getting at)



What?

Definitions and axioms are how mathematics works. You know, maths the purest collection of logic man has ever made.

There are, of course, different fields of math that are all constructed using different axioms. If sociologists were smart they'd be mathematicians who would build their own mathetematical structures, but they're not smart. Despite that, they're still trying to sell their mental masturbations by indoctrinating the youth.

 

[Pau]

This is especially interesting because blue is one of the last colors to be distinguished in a developing language, and many languages today don’t distinguish it. For example, a Japanese person might say the sky is “ao” — which is the same word used for the color of apples, grass and traffic lights. So even the concept of blueness is in great part a social construct.

This is kind of blowing my mind. Makes sense but the two languages I know have direct translations of colors so I never thought of it.

 

[Haly]

It's worthwhile to give this a quick once-over:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics#Philosophical_views

Or these, for a quick laugh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_mathematics

Greater minds than yours or mine have grappled with the implications of proving "1+1=2" I wouldn't brush their work aside so blithely.

 

[Skellig Gra]

until you divide by 0.
Or ask someone if 0.999 (repeating infinitely) is equal to 1

Imaginary numbers are a social construct

 

[Affeinvasion]

I mean this is Anthropology 101 which is basically that if everything is a social construct (which when it concerns the way humanity does and thinks about things it arguably is), then it also isn't very useful to think in those terms analytically.

To say something is a social construct does not mean that it is a fiction. Anthropologists equally would say that racism is a social construct, but that doesn't make it not "real."

A lot of this goes back to Foucault's deconstruction of history and knowledge which shows how certain social factors influence the way that we not only record knowledge but how we perceive it. This is the point where he references how the Latin term "factum" actually means "something done or made."

The point of these universalist statements in anthropology is more about showing how certain analytical tools become useless once they apply to everything than it is about blowing the minds of undergrads.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

It's worthwhile to give this a quick once-over:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics#Philosophical_views

Or these, for a quick laugh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_mathematics

Greater minds than yours or mine have grappled with the implications of proving "1+1=2" I wouldn't brush their work aside so blithely.

This use to be brought up as a joke by math professors.

I never knew anyone in the math department who took this seriously.

Edit: Therefore, false. Argument by authority. (Cantor, possibly the greatest mathematician ever, believed his mathematical talents were divine. Does that make them so?)

 

[Cocaloch]

Definitions and axioms are how mathematics works. You know,

I'm aware, but 1.99... = 2 isn't an extrapolation of axioms and definitions, it is one of them. Which I took to be the original point of the poster you quoted

who would build their own mathetematical structures, but they're not smart[/B].

Man you're a dick. Also what does this even mean? Sociology isn't reducible to math for pretty obvious reasons. How we get from information, to inference, to understanding, to model, and to prediction is vastly more complicated when the subject is social than when it is natural, much as it is vastly more complicated when the subject is natural than when it is definitional, i.e. math.

Sociology can not be math. Sociologists being "smarter" wouldn't make it math. No more than I can make history math.

Despite that, they're still trying to sell their mental masturbations by indoctrinating the youth.

Hmm, metal masturbation and indoctrinating the youth. Reminds me of some charges leveled against a pretty famous philosopher.

numbers are a social construct

This is better.

 

[TheOMan]

This is merely convention, you're setting definitions for this to be true. That's important because those definitions help other things work, but don't act like this is some ingenious proof, and definitely don't act like this isn't social. See Timoty Gowers, Mathematics (Oxford, 2002). (60 if you want a page reference for a very specific refutation of what you're getting at)



What?

I like math.

 

[tonysidaway]

Math is the only truth.

Oh boy. Mathematics is just a particularly strict human language. You set up some axioms and a problem space, and away you go. It certainly is a useful and flexible tool, but it's not true. Even mathematics itself has been proven (by the use of mathematics, of course) to be flawed, at least as regarding assumptions about some underlying fundamental unity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

 

[pirateluigi]

Definitions and axioms are how mathematics works. You know, maths the purest collection of logic man has ever made.

There are, of course, different fields of math that are all constructed using different axioms. If sociologists were smart they'd be mathematicians who would build their own mathetematical structures, but they're not smart. Despite that, they're still trying to sell their mental masturbations by indoctrinating the youth.

I honestly can't tell if this post is satire.

 

[Cocaloch]

I like math.

That wasn't math, it was semantics. Semantics related to math sure, but he wasn't doing anything there.

I honestly can't tell if this post is satire.

I was leaning towards it being that based on the last bit. But honestly who would he even be satirizing? Showing how dumb positivists are by being the opposite? If so he should have taken science not sociology as his object of derision. I'm more interested in what he studies. At first I was thinking he was a 2nd or 3rd year philosophy undergrad at a particularly anglo institution. Now I think he might be a 3rd or 4th year math student.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Orayn]

Definitions and axioms are how mathematics works. You know, maths the purest collection of logic man has ever made.

There are, of course, different fields of math that are all constructed using different axioms. If sociologists were smart they'd be mathematicians who would build their own mathetematical structures, but they're not smart. Despite that, they're still trying to sell their mental masturbations by indoctrinating the youth.

This kind of stuff directly justifies the screencap in the OP and the conversation we're having right now. You are operating on the level of "DAE reals>feels, reddit" without a hint of irony or introspection.

It's possible I'm on the wrong side of Poe's Law here but that's even more social science.

 

[tonysidaway]

I honestly can't tell if this post is satire.

I want to say it might be a Poe. I so want to believe that.

 

[Just_myles]

The transistor says hello.

 

[TheOMan]

That wasn't math, it was semantics. Semantics related to math sure, but he wasn't doing anything there.

Hmm, I guess I should be adding a wink or something, but that's not really my style. I promise if you knew me IRL you'd get my subtle humour and it be hilarious.

 

[the_darkness]

I took several anthropology classes yeas ago, but nothing at all like the slide in the OP was taught.

Cool beans dude. Was there a single slide presented during those courses when, if thrown up on twitter with zero context, could have been misrepresentative of the discussion?

 

[Harrison Bergeron]

Psh, don't impose your discursive superstructure on my subjectivity.