All things Transgender related
Comments
-
Well, you apparently also skipped over the part where I answered your questions.gimmesometruth27 said:
i skipped over a bit when you started lighting other posters up for no reason.ecdanc said:
Again, you haven't read the thread. You're conflating science (a discourse/method for apprehending reality) with that reality itself.gimmesometruth27 said:i am pretty sure that hominids figured out that if the first guy walks off of a cliff that is bad. they did not need isaac newton to tell them about gravity. it was pretty much a universal truth.0 -
You can't possibly be certain. I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time. Man has used scientific method for eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.ecdanc said:
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?mrussel1 said:
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.ecdanc said:
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?gimmesometruth27 said:
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.ecdanc said:
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.HughFreakingDillon said:
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".ecdanc said:
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?HughFreakingDillon said:
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.ecdanc said:
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:gimmesometruth27 said:science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".0 -
Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....mrussel1 said:
You can't possibly be certain. I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time. Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.ecdanc said:
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?mrussel1 said:
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.ecdanc said:
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?gimmesometruth27 said:
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.ecdanc said:
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.HughFreakingDillon said:
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".ecdanc said:
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?HughFreakingDillon said:
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.ecdanc said:
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:gimmesometruth27 said:science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.
0 -
I kinda feel that this whole thread has become 1 person telling everyone else they are wrong without ever stating anything of their own. That always bugs me.hippiemom = goodness0
-
But if reality itself is a construct created by perception and observation...ecdanc said:
Again, you haven't read the thread. You're conflating science (a discourse/method for apprehending reality) with that reality itself.gimmesometruth27 said:i am pretty sure that hominids figured out that if the first guy walks off of a cliff that is bad. they did not need isaac newton to tell them about gravity. it was pretty much a universal truth.
lol, just playing devil’s advocate
Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
If anyone has any more comments/questions re: the original topic, I'll be back in a bit (heading to take care of the kid now). The rest of you, just keep doing that science!0
-
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?cincybearcat said:I kinda feel that this whole thread has become 1 person telling everyone else they are wrong without ever stating anything of their own. That always bugs me.0 -
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.ecdanc said:If anyone has any more comments/questions re: the original topic, I'll be back in a bit (heading to take care of the kid now). The rest of you, just keep doing that science!Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
And I'm not saying it is. But your challenge of "show me something in science detached from the social construct" does not mean that science is purely an output of social construct and that if we had a different construct, some fundamental laws of physics would not be true any longer. Can you really say that if we evolved to be open about gender identity in a way that was consistent with the Greeks, then perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics may not longer be true? Of course not. That's silly. But it's essentially what you're saying to us.ecdanc said:
Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....mrussel1 said:
You can't possibly be certain. I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time. Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.ecdanc said:
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?mrussel1 said:
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.ecdanc said:
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?gimmesometruth27 said:
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.ecdanc said:
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.HughFreakingDillon said:
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".ecdanc said:
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?HughFreakingDillon said:
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.ecdanc said:
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:gimmesometruth27 said:science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion. 0 -
no, we express our opinion. you are telling us that scientists would let out a collective groan if they were to see this thread. see the difference?ecdanc said:
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?cincybearcat said:I kinda feel that this whole thread has become 1 person telling everyone else they are wrong without ever stating anything of their own. That always bugs me.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.HughFreakingDillon said:
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.ecdanc said:If anyone has any more comments/questions re: the original topic, I'll be back in a bit (heading to take care of the kid now). The rest of you, just keep doing that science!0 -
Again, you’re conflating science with the reality it exploresmrussel1 said:
And I'm not saying it is. But your challenge of "show me something in science detached from the social construct" does not mean that science is purely an output of social construct and that if we had a different construct, some fundamental laws of physics would not be true any longer. Can you really say that if we evolved to be open about gender identity in a way that was consistent with the Greeks, then perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics may not longer be true? Of course not. That's silly. But it's essentially what you're saying to us.ecdanc said:
Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....mrussel1 said:
You can't possibly be certain. I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time. Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.ecdanc said:
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?mrussel1 said:
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.ecdanc said:
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?gimmesometruth27 said:
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.ecdanc said:
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.HughFreakingDillon said:
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".ecdanc said:
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?HughFreakingDillon said:
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.ecdanc said:
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:gimmesometruth27 said:science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion. 0 -
So if science is successfully (some times at least) exploring reality, and communicating that reality to us, then how can science only be a product of the social construct? Maybe I'm missing something here, but you're making a statement and then moving the goal posts around, quite a bit.ecdanc said:
Again, you’re conflating science with the reality it exploresmrussel1 said:
And I'm not saying it is. But your challenge of "show me something in science detached from the social construct" does not mean that science is purely an output of social construct and that if we had a different construct, some fundamental laws of physics would not be true any longer. Can you really say that if we evolved to be open about gender identity in a way that was consistent with the Greeks, then perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics may not longer be true? Of course not. That's silly. But it's essentially what you're saying to us.ecdanc said:
Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....mrussel1 said:
You can't possibly be certain. I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time. Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.ecdanc said:
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?mrussel1 said:
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.ecdanc said:
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?gimmesometruth27 said:
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.ecdanc said:
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.HughFreakingDillon said:
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".ecdanc said:
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?HughFreakingDillon said:
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.ecdanc said:
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:gimmesometruth27 said:science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.
Edit - if that were the case, then when the construct changes, the science would have to change. Yet that's not the case.0 -
You don’t get an opinion on this. More accurately, your opinion doesn’t matter. I can have the opinion that throwing spaghetti at my car will make it run better, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying anything about auto repair.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, we express our opinion. you are telling us that scientists would let out a collective groan if they were to see this thread. see the difference?ecdanc said:
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?cincybearcat said:I kinda feel that this whole thread has become 1 person telling everyone else they are wrong without ever stating anything of their own. That always bugs me.0 -
Two very quick things:mrussel1 said:
So if science is successfully (some times at least) exploring reality, and communicating that reality to us, then how can science only be a product of the social construct? Maybe I'm missing something here, but you're making a statement and then moving the goal posts around, quite a bit.ecdanc said:
Again, you’re conflating science with the reality it exploresmrussel1 said:
And I'm not saying it is. But your challenge of "show me something in science detached from the social construct" does not mean that science is purely an output of social construct and that if we had a different construct, some fundamental laws of physics would not be true any longer. Can you really say that if we evolved to be open about gender identity in a way that was consistent with the Greeks, then perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics may not longer be true? Of course not. That's silly. But it's essentially what you're saying to us.ecdanc said:
Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....mrussel1 said:
You can't possibly be certain. I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time. Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.ecdanc said:
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?mrussel1 said:
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.ecdanc said:
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?gimmesometruth27 said:
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.ecdanc said:
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.HughFreakingDillon said:
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".ecdanc said:
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?HughFreakingDillon said:
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.ecdanc said:
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:gimmesometruth27 said:science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.
Edit - if that were the case, then when the construct changes, the science would have to change. Yet that's not the case.
I didn't say it was a product of the social construct, I said it is a social construct. If I wanted to be more precise, I'd say it's a "discourse," but I'm using that word in a highly specific way, so I've tried to avoid it for clarity.
And, umm...science has changed a shit ton, so....yeah.0 -
HAHA.ecdanc said:
You don’t get an opinion on this. More accurately, your opinion doesn’t matter. I can have the opinion that throwing spaghetti at my car will make it run better, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying anything about auto repair.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, we express our opinion. you are telling us that scientists would let out a collective groan if they were to see this thread. see the difference?ecdanc said:
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?cincybearcat said:I kinda feel that this whole thread has become 1 person telling everyone else they are wrong without ever stating anything of their own. That always bugs me.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
you equated it with religion.ecdanc said:
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.HughFreakingDillon said:
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.ecdanc said:If anyone has any more comments/questions re: the original topic, I'll be back in a bit (heading to take care of the kid now). The rest of you, just keep doing that science!Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Science changes because more knowledge gained, not because the social construct changes. You're skipping really important words in my sentence. That's intellectually dishonest.ecdanc said:
Two very quick things:mrussel1 said:
So if science is successfully (some times at least) exploring reality, and communicating that reality to us, then how can science only be a product of the social construct? Maybe I'm missing something here, but you're making a statement and then moving the goal posts around, quite a bit.ecdanc said:
Again, you’re conflating science with the reality it exploresmrussel1 said:
And I'm not saying it is. But your challenge of "show me something in science detached from the social construct" does not mean that science is purely an output of social construct and that if we had a different construct, some fundamental laws of physics would not be true any longer. Can you really say that if we evolved to be open about gender identity in a way that was consistent with the Greeks, then perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics may not longer be true? Of course not. That's silly. But it's essentially what you're saying to us.ecdanc said:
Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....mrussel1 said:
You can't possibly be certain. I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time. Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.ecdanc said:
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?mrussel1 said:
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.ecdanc said:
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?gimmesometruth27 said:
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.ecdanc said:
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.HughFreakingDillon said:
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".ecdanc said:
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?HughFreakingDillon said:
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.ecdanc said:
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:gimmesometruth27 said:science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.
Edit - if that were the case, then when the construct changes, the science would have to change. Yet that's not the case.
I didn't say it was a product of the social construct, I said it is a social construct. If I wanted to be more precise, I'd say it's a "discourse," but I'm using that word in a highly specific way, so I've tried to avoid it for clarity.
And, umm...science has changed a shit ton, so....yeah.0 -
No, science also changes because society changes.mrussel1 said:
Science changes because more knowledge gained, not because the social construct changes. You're skipping really important words in my sentence. That's intellectually dishonest.ecdanc said:
Two very quick things:mrussel1 said:
So if science is successfully (some times at least) exploring reality, and communicating that reality to us, then how can science only be a product of the social construct? Maybe I'm missing something here, but you're making a statement and then moving the goal posts around, quite a bit.ecdanc said:
Again, you’re conflating science with the reality it exploresmrussel1 said:
And I'm not saying it is. But your challenge of "show me something in science detached from the social construct" does not mean that science is purely an output of social construct and that if we had a different construct, some fundamental laws of physics would not be true any longer. Can you really say that if we evolved to be open about gender identity in a way that was consistent with the Greeks, then perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics may not longer be true? Of course not. That's silly. But it's essentially what you're saying to us.ecdanc said:
Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....mrussel1 said:
You can't possibly be certain. I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time. Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.ecdanc said:
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?mrussel1 said:
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.ecdanc said:
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?gimmesometruth27 said:
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.ecdanc said:
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.HughFreakingDillon said:
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".ecdanc said:
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?HughFreakingDillon said:
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.ecdanc said:
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:gimmesometruth27 said:science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.
Edit - if that were the case, then when the construct changes, the science would have to change. Yet that's not the case.
I didn't say it was a product of the social construct, I said it is a social construct. If I wanted to be more precise, I'd say it's a "discourse," but I'm using that word in a highly specific way, so I've tried to avoid it for clarity.
And, umm...science has changed a shit ton, so....yeah.0 -
No, I compared it to religion.HughFreakingDillon said:
you equated it with religion.ecdanc said:
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.HughFreakingDillon said:
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.ecdanc said:If anyone has any more comments/questions re: the original topic, I'll be back in a bit (heading to take care of the kid now). The rest of you, just keep doing that science!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help