All things Transgender related
Comments
-
You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.0 -
HAHA. REALLY?ecdanc said:
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!By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
So I'll say this... science, in name only, CAN be a social construct, if it's allowed to be used and manipulated by political or populist forces. One could claim the Museum of Creationism is science (I think it's fantasy) but it certainly tries to use scientific method to prove creationism, while ignoring all counter evidence. That's a product of a particular social construct, but also false. And therefore in my opinion, not actually science.0
-
Ok, fine, I compared your attitude toward it to religion (in a joke referring back to the Quora PhD). But, if you must: science and religion are both social constructs. Philosophy is also a social construct. So, no, I still didn't say what you think I said.HughFreakingDillon said:
HAHA. REALLY?ecdanc said:
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 -
So basically everything on this Earth is a social construct. Fine. Done. Can this be over?ecdanc said:
Ok, fine, I compared your attitude toward it to religion (in a joke referring back to the Quora PhD). But, if you must: science and religion are both social constructs. Philosophy is also a social construct. So, no, I still didn't say what you think I said.HughFreakingDillon said:
HAHA. REALLY?ecdanc said:
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 -
yes, I see I'm dealing with Professor Semantics here, so I'll let you have your technicals and bid you adieu.ecdanc said:
You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
All knowledge is discourse, yes.mrussel1 said:
So basically everything on this Earth is a social construct. Fine. Done. Can this be over?ecdanc said:
Ok, fine, I compared your attitude toward it to religion (in a joke referring back to the Quora PhD). But, if you must: science and religion are both social constructs. Philosophy is also a social construct. So, no, I still didn't say what you think I said.HughFreakingDillon said:
HAHA. REALLY?ecdanc said:
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 -
Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change. And that's cause and effect.ecdanc said:
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 -
That is not semantics, my friend; it's the very essence of knowledge.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, I see I'm dealing with Professor Semantics here, so I'll let you have your technicals and bid you adieu.ecdanc said:
You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.0 -
Did science become less racist because of facts it discovered or because society changed?mrussel1 said:
Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change. And that's cause and effect.ecdanc said:
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 -
the scientific method is a social construct. theories or hypotheses being born of the scientific method are social constructs.
science itself is not.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
chicken and the egg. Did scientists begin to understand that there were no physiological differences between 'races'? Yes. Did humanity move forward at a somewhat similar pace and determine that all men were created equal? Maybe. No one is disputing that science has not had racist or societal influences. But you would have to believe there were no immutable laws to say that science is a social construct. For it to BE a social construct, it has to be true all the time. And the immutable laws of science, such as we know them today, will survive the societal changes.ecdanc said:
Did science become less racist because of facts it discovered or because society changed?mrussel1 said:
Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change. And that's cause and effect.ecdanc said:
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.
Now you answer. Could trans rights affect the first law of thermodynamics? Will that law no longer be true if trans athletes get to compete against cis woman? Let's bring it all back to the beginning here.0 -
being on a message board having a discussion is a bit different than giving a dissertation. I speak loosely here. I don't think I need to adhere to unrealistic pompous expectations of language, especially when it's that minute.ecdanc said:
You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
This isn’t simply question of language. It’s a question of what constitutes knowledge and how knowledge is developed.HughFreakingDillon said:
being on a message board having a discussion is a bit different than giving a dissertation. I speak loosely here. I don't think I need to adhere to unrealistic pompous expectations of language, especially when it's that minute.ecdanc said:
You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.0 -
mrussel1 said:So I'll say this... science, in name only, CAN be a social construct, if it's allowed to be used and manipulated by political or populist forces. One could claim the Museum of Creationism is science (I think it's fantasy) but it certainly tries to use scientific method to prove creationism, while ignoring all counter evidence. That's a product of a particular social construct, but also false. And therefore in my opinion, not actually science.Thank the Holy Lord in Heaven we do have that Museum to thank for disproving the existence of Dinosaur Jr:
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
I don’t know any other way to say this: you continue to confuse science with the object of science’s study. Science describes things/phenomena; it does not produce them.mrussel1 said:
chicken and the egg. Did scientists begin to understand that there were no physiological differences between 'races'? Yes. Did humanity move forward at a somewhat similar pace and determine that all men were created equal? Maybe. No one is disputing that science has not had racist or societal influences. But you would have to believe there were no immutable laws to say that science is a social construct. For it to BE a social construct, it has to be true all the time. And the immutable laws of science, such as we know them today, will survive the societal changes.ecdanc said:
Did science become less racist because of facts it discovered or because society changed?mrussel1 said:
Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change. And that's cause and effect.ecdanc said:
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.
Now you answer. Could trans rights affect the first law of thermodynamics? Will that law no longer be true if trans athletes get to compete against cis woman? Let's bring it all back to the beginning here.
0 -
No one is confusing anything. I didn't say science produced the law I'm speaking of, it was recognized. Your statement about social construct and science is not exactly widely accepted. So I don't know why you would think that you would be able to convince people on the board of this hypothesis when it isn't exactly mainstream. Certainly you can pull examples where it is true, but your statement is not true all the time. You ignore the counter-examples and make glib statements that are incomplete to what the point was.ecdanc said:
I don’t know any other way to say this: you continue to confuse science with the object of science’s study. Science describes things/phenomena; it does not produce them.mrussel1 said:
chicken and the egg. Did scientists begin to understand that there were no physiological differences between 'races'? Yes. Did humanity move forward at a somewhat similar pace and determine that all men were created equal? Maybe. No one is disputing that science has not had racist or societal influences. But you would have to believe there were no immutable laws to say that science is a social construct. For it to BE a social construct, it has to be true all the time. And the immutable laws of science, such as we know them today, will survive the societal changes.ecdanc said:
Did science become less racist because of facts it discovered or because society changed?mrussel1 said:
Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change. And that's cause and effect.ecdanc said:
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.
Now you answer. Could trans rights affect the first law of thermodynamics? Will that law no longer be true if trans athletes get to compete against cis woman? Let's bring it all back to the beginning here.0 -
No, amongst scholars, mine is the more common position.mrussel1 said:
No one is confusing anything. I didn't say science produced the law I'm speaking of, it was recognized. Your statement about social construct and science is not exactly widely accepted. So I don't know why you would think that you would be able to convince people on the board of this hypothesis when it isn't exactly mainstream. Certainly you can pull examples where it is true, but your statement is not true all the time. You ignore the counter-examples and make glib statements that are incomplete to what the point was.ecdanc said:
I don’t know any other way to say this: you continue to confuse science with the object of science’s study. Science describes things/phenomena; it does not produce them.mrussel1 said:
chicken and the egg. Did scientists begin to understand that there were no physiological differences between 'races'? Yes. Did humanity move forward at a somewhat similar pace and determine that all men were created equal? Maybe. No one is disputing that science has not had racist or societal influences. But you would have to believe there were no immutable laws to say that science is a social construct. For it to BE a social construct, it has to be true all the time. And the immutable laws of science, such as we know them today, will survive the societal changes.ecdanc said:
Did science become less racist because of facts it discovered or because society changed?mrussel1 said:
Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change. And that's cause and effect.ecdanc said:
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.
Now you answer. Could trans rights affect the first law of thermodynamics? Will that law no longer be true if trans athletes get to compete against cis woman? Let's bring it all back to the beginning here.
0 -
Ummm you should probably chill with your condescending bullshit.ecdanc said:
You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.hippiemom = goodness0 -
How is that condescending? It’s a straightforward fact.cincybearcat said:
Ummm you should probably chill with your condescending bullshit.ecdanc said:
You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K 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