All things Transgender related

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.                                    

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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? 

rgambs

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.

mickeyrat

@rgambs. was it getting cold in the woods?

rgambs

mickeyrat said:

@rgambs. was it getting cold in the woods?

🤣🤣🤣 Just got our first real snow! Yay!

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.

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

ecdanc

rgambs said:

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. 

rgambs

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?

ecdanc

rgambs said:

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. 

mrussel1

rgambs said:

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.

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

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). 

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

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.

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

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? 

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

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.

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

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!

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

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!

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

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!!

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

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.

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

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." 

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

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.