i am pretty sure that hominids figured out that if the first guy walks off of a cliff that is bad. they did not need isaac newton to tell them about gravity. it was pretty much a universal truth.
Again, you haven't read the thread. You're conflating science (a discourse/method for apprehending reality) with that reality itself.
i skipped over a bit when you started lighting other posters up for no reason.
Well, you apparently also skipped over the part where I answered your questions.
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 scientific method for eons. And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor. As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted. We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct. This has all moved together.
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.
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.
i am pretty sure that hominids figured out that if the first guy walks off of a cliff that is bad. they did not need isaac newton to tell them about gravity. it was pretty much a universal truth.
Again, you haven't read the thread. You're conflating science (a discourse/method for apprehending reality) with that reality itself.
But if reality itself is a construct created by perception and observation... lol, just playing devil’s advocate
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!
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.
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?
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!
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
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.
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.
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?
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?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
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!
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.
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
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.
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.
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?
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?
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.
HAHA.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
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!
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.
you equated it with religion.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
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.
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.
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!
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.
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.
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?
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?
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.
HAHA.
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.
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!
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.
you equated it with religion.
No, I compared it to religion.
HAHA. REALLY?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
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.
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!
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.
you equated it with religion.
No, I compared it to religion.
HAHA. REALLY?
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.
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!
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.
you equated it with religion.
No, I compared it to religion.
HAHA. REALLY?
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.
So basically everything on this Earth is a social construct. Fine. Done. Can this be over?
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.
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?
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?
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.
HAHA.
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.
yes, I see I'm dealing with Professor Semantics here, so I'll let you have your technicals and bid you adieu.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
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!
and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept.
Stop misrepresenting my stance. I said social construct, not philosophical concept.
you equated it with religion.
No, I compared it to religion.
HAHA. REALLY?
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.
So basically everything on this Earth is a social construct. Fine. Done. Can this be over?
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.
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.
Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?
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?
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.
HAHA.
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.
yes, I see I'm dealing with Professor Semantics here, so I'll let you have your technicals and bid you adieu.
That is not semantics, my friend; it's the very essence of knowledge.
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?
Comments
Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.
lol, just playing devil’s advocate
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
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.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93