All things Transgender related

gimmesometruth27 said:

show previous quotes

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i am pretty sure that hominids figured out that if the first guy walks off of a cliff that is bad. they did not need isaac newton to tell them about gravity. it was pretty much a universal truth.

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.

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

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.  

cincybearcat said:

I kinda feel that this whole thread has become 1 person telling everyone else they are wrong without ever stating anything of their own.  That always bugs me.

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

ecdanc said:

If anyone has any more comments/questions re: the original topic, I'll be back in a bit (heading to take care of the kid now). The rest of you, just keep doing that science!

and you keep musing about how science is a philosophical concept. 

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

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. 

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

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.