science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
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.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
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?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
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?
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.
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?
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.
Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.
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.
Again, you’re conflating science with the reality it explores
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.
Edit - if that were the case, then when the construct changes, the science would have to change. Yet that's not the case.
Two very quick things:
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.
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.
No, science also changes because society changes.
Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change. And that's cause and effect.
Did science become less racist because of facts it discovered or because society changed?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, amongst scholars, mine is the more common position.
Maybe amongst scholars who talk about science and research, but not likely among those who actually engage in scientific research...
Read the entire thread. You’re agreeing with me.
Maybe, but I don't generally give much credence to the opinions of "experts" who don't actually engage in their field of "study" I grew tired of philosophy in my teens, it's a big circle-jerk that leads nowhere. It can be a ton of fun to run in circles, but that gets old. Ontology and epistemology are the most classic examples of intellectualism put to no use at all.
I don’t like hockey, so I tend to keep my mouth shut about it.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
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.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
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?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.
Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.
I'm drawing a correlation to how the baby, or our ancestors used science, not saying buying an album is science. You said that until someone recognized and articulated the scientific method, it didn't exist. At least that was my interpretation earlier. I'm saying humans used the method to varying degrees even though they did not recognize it as such, nor follow every step completely.
Again, scientists everywhere are cringing.
Dude, no they aren't lol I know a few naturalists and a population geneticist and they would laugh at what you are saying and tell you to drink a beer, burn one, put down the philosophy books and get your hands dirty lol
Huh. So if everyone is doing science, why should anyone listen to scientists?
Well, because they are much better at it than everyone else, of course. I'm a pretty good cook, I still use recipes from top chefs. I used to do my own taxes, I never thought of myself as an economist. I am pretty insightful with the emotions of my friends and family, I don't claim to be a psychiatrist.
Those scientists do not conflate reality and science. That’s where in this conversation you’ve intervened.
Neither do they conflate an objective system of observation with a social construct. Maybe I am out of my depth here, but shouldn't different societies have completely different approaches to scientific research if it's a social construct?
When a person is isolated from societal influence, do you suggest they will form a system of learning about reality that is different than observation, hypothesis, and experiment? I'd love to know what other method is possible, I can't even think of one.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,938
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
My membership lapsed because my bank sucks...when Dance came out I had to renew because I want to see the new album when they come nearish to Ohio again.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
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.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
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?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.
Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.
I'm drawing a correlation to how the baby, or our ancestors used science, not saying buying an album is science. You said that until someone recognized and articulated the scientific method, it didn't exist. At least that was my interpretation earlier. I'm saying humans used the method to varying degrees even though they did not recognize it as such, nor follow every step completely.
Again, scientists everywhere are cringing.
Dude, no they aren't lol I know a few naturalists and a population geneticist and they would laugh at what you are saying and tell you to drink a beer, burn one, put down the philosophy books and get your hands dirty lol
Huh. So if everyone is doing science, why should anyone listen to scientists?
Well, because they are much better at it than everyone else, of course. I'm a pretty good cook, I still use recipes from top chefs. I used to do my own taxes, I never thought of myself as an economist. I am pretty insightful with the emotions of my friends and family, I don't claim to be a psychiatrist.
Those scientists do not conflate reality and science. That’s where in this conversation you’ve intervened.
Neither do they conflate an objective system of observation with a social construct. Maybe I am out of my depth here, but shouldn't different societies have completely different approaches to scientific research if it's a social construct?
"objective system of observation?" You're rehashing the ground of our disagreement.
You don't even have to look at different societies; look at a single society's history.
When a person is isolated from societal influence, do you suggest they will form a system of learning about reality that is different than observation, hypothesis, and experiment? I'd love to know what other method is possible, I can't even think of one.
We have plenty of alternatives to that "system of learning" in our own society--don't need to look elsewhere.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
This is where I started and still sit. Depending on the complexity of the problem, the level of intensity of each stage may vary, but it all follows the same fundamental path.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
This is where I started and still sit. Depending on the complexity of the problem, the level of intensity of each stage may vary, but it all follows the same fundamental path.
Right (that this is where you sit), which is why I don't really want to have the conversation again with rgambs (it's in the thread).
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
Okay, obviously (to me) I meant increasing the understanding and ability to manipulate, not just passing understanding gained on to another...which is all that religion, philosophy, and common sense do.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
Okay, obviously (to me) I meant increasing the understanding and ability to manipulate, not just passing understanding gained on to another...which is all that religion, philosophy, and common sense do.
You think philosophy doesn't produce new knowledge?
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
This is where I started and still sit. Depending on the complexity of the problem, the level of intensity of each stage may vary, but it all follows the same fundamental path.
Right (that this is where you sit), which is why I don't really want to have the conversation again with rgambs (it's in the thread).
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
This is where I started and still sit. Depending on the complexity of the problem, the level of intensity of each stage may vary, but it all follows the same fundamental path.
Right (that this is where you sit), which is why I don't really want to have the conversation again with rgambs (it's in the thread).
Holy shit we agree! There’s hope!
The only thing we can agree on: we don't want to do this again!
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.
"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,938
create a science vs. xxx thread and debate this there.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.
"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?
PhD in English? Nope lol. This has been fun. Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures? To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.
"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?
PhD in English? Nope lol. This has been fun. Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures? To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?
I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.
I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.
"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?
PhD in English? Nope lol. This has been fun. Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures? To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?
I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.
I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing.
Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.
Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate.
I disagree, please elaborate. The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same. The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment" I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!
Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science? That's what science is. Period.
"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science."
All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science. The degree of sophistication is the variant. I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous. They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want).
It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.
"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?
PhD in English? Nope lol. This has been fun. Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures? To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?
I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.
I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing.
As for your last question: no.
Damn, you must be a real hoot at parties lol
Yeah, I get pissed when people shit on stuff they don't understand at parties too.
Comments
Maybe I am out of my depth here, but shouldn't different societies have completely different approaches to scientific research if it's a social construct?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
My membership lapsed because my bank sucks...when Dance came out I had to renew because I want to see the new album when they come nearish to Ohio again.
You don't even have to look at different societies; look at a single society's history.
What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist? Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?
And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time.
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system. Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off. Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University. Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants. I am just a farmer. The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature.
Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures?
To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?
I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing.
As for your last question: no.
Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate.