Current Events > Scientific Facts are Social Constructs

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

All this context I can barely hold it.
---

What was their explanation for that bold claim?
---

For all we know that slide is there as the teacher explains how that line isn't true. But eh.
---

What a society accepts as "scientific fact" is often a reflection of that society's values and culture. Phrenology and eugenics were taken as scientific fact in some circles.
---

this sounds like something @MikeArmstrong aka @GOATTHlEF would say lol
---

This "facts arent really facts" bullshit is standard fare for postmodernists. Hardly surprising to see it in college and I hope I never see it in any of my classes again.
---

thinking science is infallible is one of the most unscientific beliefs you can have
---

This is actually true to an extent even in context of our own society. It depends on the kind of science you're talking about. Physics is objective; while our understanding of the "why" may actually turn out to be completely erroneous someday (and is very shaky in many areas as is), we at least know what will happen with a given set of variables well enough to precisely pilot spacefaring vehicles, calibrate GPS systems, and so on. But when it comes to fields like medicine or biology, there's enough we don't understand fully that our interpretations really are social constructs. For example, our understanding of neurotransmitters is still very incomplete, and the societal view of dopamine as a pleasure/reward chemical is not at all a complete picture.

When you look it in in the context of undeveloped societies or those that control information in a totalitarian manner, "scientific fact" can easily bear no resemblance to observable reality. There are still cultures that don't know about microbiology and germs, for example.
---

hortanz posted...

thinking science is infallible is one of the most unscientific beliefs you can have

True but that doesn't make it a social construct.
---

BignutzisBack posted...

this sounds like something @MikeArmstrong aka @GOATTHlEF would say lol

First you thought he was Butters, now you think he's Goatthief? Lol.
---

Gamer99z posted...

BignutzisBack posted...

this sounds like something @MikeArmstrong aka @GOATTHlEF would say lol

First you thought he was Butters, now you think he's Goatthief? Lol.

@Mike_Stanton is butters, @MikeArmstrong is Goatthief
---

BignutzisBack posted...

Gamer99z posted...

BignutzisBack posted...

this sounds like something MikeArmstrong aka GOATTHlEF would say lol

First you thought he was Butters, now you think he's Goatthief? Lol.

Mike_Stanton is butters, MikeArmstrong is Goatthief

Mike_Stanton is in fact butters, but MikeArmstrong most definitely isn't Goatthief.
---

Lmao @BignutzisBack is funny

Mal_Fet posted...

hortanz posted...

thinking science is infallible is one of the most unscientific beliefs you can have

True but that doesn't make it a social construct.

But, uh, it does make them at least partially constructed. Science exists as a social system, sorry to tell ya. Even if we're not talking epistemology here, it turns out that trends in beliefs and popular ideas are extremely common.
---

I guess technically the sky is not blue

because blue is the english word for blue and another culture would use a different word

FrozenXylophone posted...

I guess technically the sky is not blue

because blue is the english word for blue and another culture would use a different word

actually the sky is farther along on the ultraviolet spectrum and only appears blue to humans because of the way our eyes work

also it changes colour depending on the weather and the time of day
---

Science exists within social systems. Science is not in itself a social system. There's a big difference. Social systems can be based on nonsense. Science is based on empirical evidence, peer review, reproducibility, and technology.

Science is rigorous and testable and reproducible. A social system is just a sociologist's attempt at finding patterns amongst groups and using those patterns to build some explanatory framework. Science is a lot more than that.

COVxy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hortanz posted...

thinking science is infallible is one of the most unscientific beliefs you can have

True but that doesn't make it a social construct.

But, uh, it does. Science exists as a social system, sorry to tell ya. Even if we're not talking epistemology here, it turns out that trends in beliefs and popular ideas are extremely common.

Right, which is why the evidence against the Bible's claims are so exceedingly prolific in the US scientific community despite the majority of Americans claiming to believe in what it says. Or why the scientific community so staunchly affirms climate change science despite most Americans not believing it.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Science exists within social systems. Science is not in itself a social system. There's a big difference. Social systems can be based on nonsense. Science is based on empirical evidence, peer review, reproducibility, and technology.

Science is rigorous and testable and reproducible. A social system is just a sociologist's attempt at finding patterns amongst groups and using those patterns to build some explanatory framework. Science is a lot more than that.

Again, science as an entity is not separable from those who do it and the social demands of the scientific community. Certain ideas, regardless of the data, become more or less "sexy" depending on the trends.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Right, which is why the evidence against the Bible's claims are so exceedingly prolific in the US scientific community despite the majority of Americans claiming to believe in what it says. Or why the scientific community so staunchly affirms climate change science despite most Americans not believing it.

I didn't say that it is the lay social system.
---

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Science exists within social systems. Science is not in itself a social system. There's a big difference. Social systems can be based on nonsense. Science is based on empirical evidence, peer review, reproducibility, and technology.

Science is rigorous and testable and reproducible. A social system is just a sociologist's attempt at finding patterns amongst groups and using those patterns to build some explanatory framework. Science is a lot more than that.

Again, science as an entity is not separable from those who do it and the social demands of the scientific community. Certain ideas, regardless of the data, become more or less "sexy" depending on the trends.

You don't know what you're talking about. Science is completely separable from those who do it, which is why it is reproducible. It is based on evidence and tests and falsifying claims. None of that depends on who is doing it, and science will always be science regardless of demands someone might make.

COVxy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hortanz posted...

thinking science is infallible is one of the most unscientific beliefs you can have

True but that doesn't make it a social construct.

But, uh, it does. Science exists as a social system, sorry to tell ya. Even if we're not talking epistemology here, it turns out that trends in beliefs and popular ideas are extremely common.

Hmm how does knowing the fallibility of science = science is a social construct? Maybe expand on your argument there....

to me, the fallibility of science speaks more to our own limitations in understanding due to our senses generally being a bad representation of objective reality.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

You don't know what you're talking about. Science is completely separable from those who do it, which is why it is reproducible. It is based on evidence and tests and falsifying claims. None of that depends on who is doing it, and science will always be science regardless of demands someone might make.

This is naive and not actually representative of science.

It is the ideal form, but it doesn't exist.
---

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

You don't know what you're talking about. Science is completely separable from those who do it, which is why it is reproducible. It is based on evidence and tests and falsifying claims. None of that depends on who is doing it, and science will always be science regardless of demands someone might make.

This is naive and not actually representative of science.

It is the ideal form, but it doesn't exist.

It doesn't always exist or work this way but it overwhelmingly does. That is why you have technology and research methodologies at your disposal.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It doesn't always exist or work this way but it overwhelmingly does. That is why you have technology and research methodologies at your disposal.

Again, this doesn't change the fact that those who do science are humans that exist within a community that has different trends, in the same way that things become trending on Facebook.

"Dynamics" has become trendy in my field over the past few years. If you attempt to publish a time-varying analysis, you are going to have a much easier time getting it accepted now than you would have a couple of years ago. Different brain regions often fade into and out of the lime-light, etc...

There are clear publication biases at work. A brain region can be associated with a particular faculty because people examining that faculty only look at that brain region.
---

COVxy posted...

Again, this doesn't change the fact that those who do science are humans that exist within a community that has different trends, in the same way that things become trending on Facebook.

How unbelievably incorrect. Science is science regardless of where it happens. This is because science is based on evidence, tests, reproducibility, and falsifiability. This is why someone can run the same objective science experiment in India that we can in America or Europe or any other part of the world.

Facebook trends are in no meaningful way comparable to science or anything to do with science because trends aren't affecting the evidence and tests. Otherwise they wouldn't pass peer review, be circulated, be repeatable, etc.

COVxy posted...

"Dynamics" has become trendy in my field over the past few years. If you attempt to publish a time-varying analysis, you are going to have a much easier time getting it accepted now than you would have a couple of years ago. Different brain regions often fade into and out of the lime-light, etc...

There are clear publication biases at work. A brain region can be associated with a particular faculty because people examining that faculty only look at that brain region.

What is your field? You don't seem very smart so I want to make sure you're even credentialed to speak to what science is. I mean you think Facebook trends are somehow in any way related to how science works and how it is practiced around the world.

Who cares about important context and discussion when you can jump aboard the liberalsareinsane circlejerk train!
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

COVxy posted...

Again, this doesn't change the fact that those who do science are humans that exist within a community that has different trends, in the same way that things become trending on Facebook.

How unbelievably incorrect. Science is science regardless of where it happens. This is because science is based on evidence, tests, reproducibility, and falsifiability. This is why someone can run the same objective science experiment in India that we can in America or Europe or any other part of the world.

Facebook trends are in no meaningful way comparable to science or anything to do with science because trends aren't affecting the evidence and tests. Otherwise they wouldn't pass peer review, be circulated, be repeatable, etc.

COVxy posted...

"Dynamics" has become trendy in my field over the past few years. If you attempt to publish a time-varying analysis, you are going to have a much easier time getting it accepted now than you would have a couple of years ago. Different brain regions often fade into and out of the lime-light, etc...

There are clear publication biases at work. A brain region can be associated with a particular faculty because people examining that faculty only look at that brain region.

What is your field? You don't seem very smart so I want to make sure you're even credentialed to speak to what science is. I mean you think Facebook trends are somehow in any way related to how science works and how it is practiced around the world.

You don't quite understand what an analogy is, do you?

Working on my PhD in neuroscience.
---

COVxy posted...

You don't quite understand what an analogy is, do you?

So you are reasoning by analogy? LOL!!!!!!! Reasoning by analogy means you have no argument. You don't seem to understand how to argue or how evidence, testability, falsifiability, reproducibility, objectivity, etc, all work. Embarrassing.

COVxy posted...

Working on my PhD in neuroscience.

Please consider quitting that PhD and pursuing a job in HR or something simpler instead.

...lmao.
---

What institution is this at? I want to make sure I'm not somehow indirectly funding its existence because this is just embarrassing.

FLUFFYGERM, are you really this triggered when you don't know the slightest bit about what the class was actually discussing? Like, have you never been in a lecture where the professor put up a spicy title just to get people talking?

Because that was pretty much every lecture I ever went to that had anything to do with humanities.
---

well...moving on from the ad hominem...

I would say social constructs are subjective, and science strips all subjectivity away in order to model the objective world.

now we can say it doesn't always accomplish this, but would you agree that in principle, the topic title is not true?

why does no one troll with any subtlety these days
---

pinky0926 posted...

FLUFFYGERM, are you really this triggered when you don't know the slightest bit about what the class was actually discussing? Like, have you never been in a lecture where the professor put up a spicy title just to get people talking?

Because that was pretty much every lecture I ever went to that had anything to do with humanities.

I didn't even comment on the picture or the class, though. I've only commented on @COVxy 's embarrassing misunderstanding of how science works.

The only people that don't think that science exhibits social trends are those who aren't actually in science, tbh.
---

Romes187 posted...

I would say social constructs are subjective, and science strips all subjectivity away in order to model the objective world.

now we can say it doesn't always accomplish this, but would you agree that in principle, the topic title is not true?

sane people agree with you, yes. I hate beating a dead horse but that is why respectable peer reviewed journals exist. That is why the rigor of reproducing results exists. It's because science enables us to be objective.

COVxy posted...

The only people that don't think that science exhibits social trends are those who aren't actually in science, tbh.

The only people who think science has anything to do with social trends are those who aren't actually in science, tbh.

You're a sociologist, not a neuroscientist.

pinky0926 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

pinky0926 posted...

FLUFFYGERM, are you really this triggered when you don't know the slightest bit about what the class was actually discussing? Like, have you never been in a lecture where the professor put up a spicy title just to get people talking?

Because that was pretty much every lecture I ever went to that had anything to do with humanities.

I didn't even comment on the picture or the class, though. I've only commented on @COVxy 's embarrassing misunderstanding of how science works.

Post #33 - What institution is this at? I want to make sure I'm not somehow indirectly funding its existence because this is just embarrassing.

i was asking @COVxy

plz see my exchange with him. i can't care less about the picture in the first post.

Error1355 posted...

For all we know that slide is there as the teacher explains how that line isn't true. But eh.

Someone has way too much faith in an anthro professor.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The only people who think science has anything to do with social trends are those who aren't actually in science, tbh.

You're a sociologist, not a neuroscientist.

Again, said someone who hasn't actually read through a scientific literature.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

COVxy posted...

The only people that don't think that science exhibits social trends are those who aren't actually in science, tbh.

The only people who think science has anything to do with social trends are those who aren't actually in science, tbh.

You're a sociologist, not a neuroscientist.

I mean it's pretty obvious that Covxy is talking about the culture around science and how human behaviour affects what gets more research than others.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

COVxy posted...

Again, this doesn't change the fact that those who do science are humans that exist within a community that has different trends, in the same way that things become trending on Facebook.

How unbelievably incorrect. Science is science regardless of where it happens. This is because science is based on evidence, tests, reproducibility, and falsifiability. This is why someone can run the same objective science experiment in India that we can in America or Europe or any other part of the world.

Facebook trends are in no meaningful way comparable to science or anything to do with science because trends aren't affecting the evidence and tests. Otherwise they wouldn't pass peer review, be circulated, be repeatable, etc.

COVxy posted...

"Dynamics" has become trendy in my field over the past few years. If you attempt to publish a time-varying analysis, you are going to have a much easier time getting it accepted now than you would have a couple of years ago. Different brain regions often fade into and out of the lime-light, etc...

There are clear publication biases at work. A brain region can be associated with a particular faculty because people examining that faculty only look at that brain region.

What is your field? You don't seem very smart so I want to make sure you're even credentialed to speak to what science is. I mean you think Facebook trends are somehow in any way related to how science works and how it is practiced around the world.

I think you're missing the point.

Whether any individual scientist is working on something while eliminating their bias to the best of their ability, whether the concept of the research is objective; the fact that it fundamentally exists within the scope of human influence and is performed by humans necessarily introduces the "social" element.

What happens when papers covering certain topics get published and studies covering certain subjects get funded more often for no other reason than the public has taken interest in them (making them a safer investment)? What happens when, as a result of this, later studies try to insert these more appealing components into their methodology? What happens when a team of researchers, inevitably made of real and biased human beings, gets into conflict over how to present their material? What happens when journalists who report on studies and thereby create controversy, hurting the chances of similar research being funded in the future?

Our social world influencing our scientific world isn't a question of intention. It's one of unavoidability.
---

Isn't this technically correct to a degree, considering that in science there are no actual facts and just theories?

Anything that can be proven, can later be disproven. Therefore anything we regard as "facts" are just the best theories that are socially accepted.
---

itachi15243 posted...

Isn't this technically correct to a degree, considering that in science there are no actual facts and just theories?

Anything that can be proven, can later be disproven. Therefore anything we regard as "facts" are just the best theories that are socially accepted.

You should look into pragmatism - I think you'd find the pragmatic view of truth in line with what you are saying here.

itachi15243 posted...

Isn't this technically correct to a degree, considering that in science there are no actual facts and just theories?

Anything that can be proven, can later be disproven. Therefore anything we regard as "facts" are just the best theories that are socially accepted.

No. What you're saying is flat out wrong.
---

I mean, there's no such thing as the scientific method, even. Just a set of scientific methods ideosyncratically passed from advisor to student in a hierarchical academic family tree. Different scientists not only do science differently, but also interpret evidence with different weight. This is not empirical. Many parameters are chosen simply for the sake of tradition and lack of time/money/opportunity to search through parameter space.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

No. What you're saying is flat out wrong.

Naw, he's pretty close in traditional Popperian philosophy of science.
---