/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7655894]

Science is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.7655898]

>>7655894
ur a social construct. >>>/his/

[Anonymous No.7655904]

>>7655894
But is not this class also a social construct?

[Anonymous No.7655910]

>>7655894
don't forget that words have meaning OP

[Anonymous No.7655911]

>>7655894
>Words have meaning

No fucking shit. Do people really get paid to "teach" this shit?

[Anonymous No.7655913]

>words have meaning
i'm gonna need a source on op pic it seems bullshit

[Anonymous No.7655928]

>>7655894
Teacher has that "sexy librarian" thing going though. Takes off her glasses... "wow! who knew you were so beautiful?"

[Anonymous No.7655936]

>>7655894
This is retarded what a waste of time

[Anonymous No.7655942]

>>7655894
there's been a ton of godawful policy implemented in the world as a result of questionable interpretation of contemporary research, all under the aegis of science. while the discipline itself tries to be rigorous in its own internal workings, it frequently falls short, and furthermore, "science" itself is greatly mythologized in popular consciousness, and its findings are much abused by all kinds of troglodytes.

think, for example, about american research into eugenics, or half the shit that got published in the reich. you've also got lamarckian evolution in the early soviet union, as well as their dubious take on the history of economics. in the west, the austrian school of econ is even more deranged

this is a good professor and it sounds like an interesting course. it's good to see you're learning, op :)

[Anonymous No.7655946]

>>7655911
>>7655913
>>7655936

This is pretty much High school now a days.

[beepbeep !!nvEeVdLBA8C No.7655948]

autism THE THREAD

[Anonymous No.7655954]

>>7655942

[Anonymous No.7655958]

Why if something is a social construct it must be in some sense less relevant? That the evul white European man created it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Fucking social "scientists" I sware.

[Anonymous No.7655959]

that these stand under 'take away', makes it so much more amusing

[Anonymous No.7655980]

>>7655958
i don't think you need to look farther than the newspaper to see how tremendously relevant social constructs are.

it's useful, however, to understand that social constructs are fundamentally mutable. that's what our sexy librarian here is trying to get at: that quite aside from institutional science, there exists a popular conception of what science is and has uncovered, and what these means for the world.

i mean, think of all the times in your life when you've heard of people talking about the "point" of evolution, or evolutionary "progress", or something being more or less evolved than something else (remember, evolution is not uniformly a process leading to greater complexity). how about psych, where the popular understanding is completely dominated by outdated freudian notions. how often do you hear about people being in denial, or about things being repressed? ever hear someone called anal retentive?

the popular lexicon is full of this stuff, and it carries the full authority of actual research. for relatively anodyne stuff like the examples i mentioned, it doesn't really matter too much, but there's other stuff out there that has a history of being used as a cudgel against the weak (usually niggers or poors, but not always).

i'm not even getting into the weird turns that social sciences have sometimes taken. anthropology, remember, was started as a mechanism to perpetuate empire, and most of its early findings are laughably bad and inaccurate

[Anonymous No.7656000]

>colonizers sought the erasure of indigineous people
Colonizers sought money and power and didnt give two shits what happened to the people already living in the land that could get that for them. Colonial powers were not malevolant demons seeking to destroy and erase noble, innocent, honorable "natives." They were self-interested political bodies with lots of power and an incentive to justify any action that furthered their goals.

"Science" is a methodology and arguably a segment of academia. IE, an intellectual construct with proven use and a part of some institution. Not a 'social construct.'

Discovery is a broad concept that isnt tied to colonization or fucking of people living in some conquered or annexed and then colonized land because we in european cultures say columbus discovered america.(Which he did. For europeans of his time. Which we're the descendants of. claims of discovery neednt imply its something no fucking human on the planet knew of before, its fine to call something a 'discovery' if noone in your "world" knew about it.)

Words meaning is mutable and contextual, and even sometimes subjective.

[Anonymous No.7656005]

>>7655894
Race may be a construct however, the marvelous quality about the human mind is that it may conjure facts despite with no evidence behind it. Race IS real.

[Anonymous No.7656006]

>>7655894
>words have meaning

[Anonymous No.7656007]

>>7655904
>But is not this class also a social construct?
Sure.
I don't know where people get "social construct" = "not real".
Car insurance is a "social construct", but it's still very real.

[Anonymous No.7656010]

>>7655928
>Teacher has that "sexy librarian" thing going though
Nope.
The lighting's so poor it could be Ed Asner in a wig and glasses.

[Anonymous No.7656012]

>>7655942
hm?
This leftist assertion of equality has killed millions and cost trillions
Eventually it'll destroy the west.

[Anonymous No.7656014]

>>7655942
notsureiftrolling.jpg

>denounces science
>uses eugenics, Lamarckian evolution, and fucking ECONOMICS as examples of science

Nigger, do you even know what science IS?

[Anonymous No.7656015]

>>7655958
It's not even a real argument

They make these absurd fallacies, that you then hear people repeat endlessly
Impossible to argue without being called a racist.

[Anonymous No.7656024]

>Colonizers sought money and power and didnt give two shits what happened to the people already living in the land that could get that for them.

i think you're defining erasure here, friend. i'm glad that we agree and i regret that you find that word in particular to be objectionable.

>"Science" is a methodology and arguably a segment of academia. IE, an intellectual construct with proven use and a part of some institution. Not a 'social construct.'

any time you extrapolate a scientific finding into society at large you're establishing social constructs. short of the very narrow subset of science concerned only with refinement of tools (and i'm using that term very broadly), any application of science will necessarily contain this dimension.

Discovery is a broad concept that isnt tied to colonization or fucking of people living in some conquered or annexed and then colonized land because we in european cultures say columbus discovered america.(Which he did. For europeans of his time. Which we're the descendants of. claims of discovery neednt imply its something no fucking human on the planet knew of before, its fine to call something a 'discovery' if noone in your "world" knew about it.)

i think it's safe to assume that discovery here is being used in the geographic sense (remember, we're just looking at the study guide, intended to complement the actual lesson). in that context, discovery has historically absolutely gone hand-in-hand with colonization and the idea of the frontier, ie an area free of the confines of law and ripe for exploitation. seeing this as permissible lies at the core of erasure.

[Anonymous No.7656026]

>>7655894
woah..................

[Anonymous No.7656030]

>>7656014
do you?

i understand that on leddit the only acceptable scientific disciplines are the ones practiced by aperture science, but here in the real world (aka 4chan) econ is considered a science.

all the other examples were, at one time, very serious disciplines, and they were taken as such by contemporaries. do you imagine that we've abandoned those concepts because a man in a laboratory (possibly holding a beaker) told us to?

[Anonymous No.7656031]

>>7656024
>i think you're defining erasure here, friend.
No, I wasn't. At all. to "seek erasure" of some group would be to actively attempt to ensure their destruction, as your primary driving goal. Hitler sought erasure of the jews. Colonial powers didnt give a shit what happened to the people living in the land they made their colonies as long as they got resources and tax and prestige. Sometimes this led to decline of the people whod been living there over time, sometimes it didn't, at all.

[Anonymous No.7656033]

imperialists sought money and power
colonists south to COLONIZE

Bit of a difference.

[Anonymous No.7656036]

>>7656033
In that definition "colonists" didnt fuckin' exist. Anywhere.
States that established colonies were imperialist, seeking money and power.

[Anonymous No.7656038]

>>7656031
oh i see, we're talking past each other. in terms of hitler vs natives, you'll find that erasure, as it's used academically, actually aligns more with the latter.

hope this helps!

[Anonymous No.7656039]

>>7655942

>/lit/

[Anonymous No.7656040]

>>7655894

Colors are a social construct

Laws and the constitution is a social construct

Morals and ethics are a social construct

Traffic rules are a social construct

Language is a social construct

[Anonymous No.7656041]

>>7656030
>econ is considered a science.
The real world does not consider it a science. There is a reason why they call it voodoo "science".

[Anonymous No.7656042]

>>7655911
go to /his/ and they will >derrida you for that

[Anonymous No.7656046]

Women like the one in OP pic are easy to fuck. Most of these women are so smug, that if you stroke their ego a bit. Their panties come off for the first guy that "acknowledges' their "intelligence". I've fucked a lot of smug bitches like her. They're really submissive into some freaky shit.

[Anonymous No.7656048]

>>7655894
maybe you should have registered earlier in the semester. you totally deserve to put in a class like this.

[Anonymous No.7656049]

>>7656041
hm yes let me pass that insight on to the economists employed at goldman-sachs

[Anonymous No.7656050]

>>7656041
>There is a reason why they call it voodoo "science".

who is 'they'

where is the 'real world'

all you're doing is employing a No True Scotsman fallacy

>well, all that science you just listed was wrong, and REAL science is never wrong you dummy so it wasn't REAL science

[Anonymous No.7656051]

>>7656040
>Colors are a social construct
Uh, there's some physiology in there too.

[Anonymous No.7656053]

Science is a process friend

[Anonymous No.7656058]

>>7656051
Thats the point. There is a basis for every social construct. Normally colors don't exist. We just label arbitrary ranges of wavelengths. But those wavelengths exist and there are differences betwen them, which is why these constructs exist.

[Anonymous No.7656061]

>>7656050
Theh should really change the sticky at /pol/ so 15 year olds could shut up.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[Anonymous No.7656064]

>>7656051
it sounds like you're still burdened by the notion that the idea of social constructs exists firmly in the realm of convention, in direct opposition to material reality, rather than straddling both.

You can find a little peek into the current dialogue about color and perception here: http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/tics2.pdf

[Anonymous No.7656065]

>>7656058
Labeling shit is a social construct because language is a social construct. You dipshit.

[Anonymous No.7656067]

>>7656061

so you're using an argument from fallacy to discount my argument from fallacy

nice

the point is, all of his examples were considered 'valid' science in their time, and certainly show that science is at least partially culture dependent, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise

[Anonymous No.7656068]

>>7656049
They employ accountants and financial analysts to fix the economist work. They are not taken seriously.
>>7656050
Who is they? Scientists themselves. There is a huge study on the problem of reproducing famous economics studies. But this is /biz/ so you'll have a hard time understand why. So I ask you to go /sci/. You won't believe anyone, due to their your preconceive bias.

[Anonymous No.7656069]

>>7656067
I was just stating you were saying stupid shit. I know how it feels to be 15 years old, but its cringy desu.

[Anonymous No.7656070]

>>7656061
oh god. SJW is here to derail another thread with "i hate pol and everyone has to hear it" crap again

[Anonymous No.7656071]

>>7656068
they're taken seriously enough to pull in very large paychecks :)
perhaps you should shoot mr blankfein an email and let him know you can help improve his bottom line

[Anonymous No.7656074]

>>7656070
I go to /pol/ I like it, you are just an angsty teen.

[Anonymous No.7656079]

>>7656071
>they're taken seriously enough to pull in very large paychecks :)
You do know economists are hired because its a legacy thing from the past. These days their work is overtaken by quant analysts, and data scientists. Economics is literally a dead field. They are questioning a lot of the famous econ studies for a good reason. They want to extrapolate the good studies and toss them to statistics and maths. The rest will be considered pseudo-science and disregarded as hearsay. Also if you equal big check for your life then you are sad man. I've been there before and trust me it brings nothing but misery. Why do you think rich folks are always on opiates?

[Anonymous No.7656080]

>>7656069

and I was saying that you can't just define science to be "everything in scientific disciplines that is true and not influenced by culture and agrees with me" because it doesn't work that way

hence the no true scotsman

you can say science isn't influenced by culture by discounting any examples as "not really science" because that's also not how it works

[Anonymous No.7656081]

>>7656074
oh sorry. I'm just so sick of that "gb2pol" being spammed in every single thread.

[Anonymous No.7656087]

>>7656080
There are problems with science, obviously. We are not computers and we canmot be completely unbiased in many things. But we already know all this crap and really smart guys have created a global system to get the best out if it. And the fact that we do not care about this tiny problems is because we have the greatest argument you cab give to any other field, results.

You can jerkoff all you want about the hard problem of empiricism and the cultural/human bias we have, but the big picture is thta it works and it has been working throughout humanity's existence. So while it is important to discuss the scope of science and the problems regarding the method, these people are just throwing it out the window because is a western opresive system.

[Anonymous No.7656091]

>>7656007
Buy science being social conduct would mean it's based merely on whims of scientists, and not on objective reality

[Anonymous No.7656092]

>>7656079
hey, i fully embrace a rigorous accounting of econ. not being one myself, my familiarity with it is only passing, but if the field itself were to somehow collapse, with the useful core being rebranded and absorbed by sister disciplines and the majority abandoned, then that speaks deeply to the idea that much of science exists by convention.

also, i'm not sure where you're seeing me making value judgements. i'm suggesting that a company like goldman sachs, notorious for their ruthless pursuit of profits, is unlikely to keep their economists on the payroll if they weren't able to extract value from them

[Anonymous No.7656093]

>>7656080
>science is a social construction
Fucking constructivist.

[Anonymous No.7656095]

>>7656092
The type of economists GS keeps are behavioral. They want to "predict" the consumers in the market. You can do this with predictive analytic with your data scientists.

[Anonymous No.7656099]

>>7655894
The picture is obviously referring to mainstream "science culture", as in the shit the public does after getting some dumbed down pop-science explanation of a concept. I think we can all agree that this is a social construct in the sense that it's a cultural phenomenon with no objective justification. I say his not only because pop-science is not only incorrect 99% of the time but because saying "I read a blog post about it" is not a justification for pushing an entire ideology (though it is a justification for wanting to learn more about it).

[Anonymous No.7656105]

>>7656099
Oh, and social sciences are not only social constructs but also pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.7656107]

>>7656087
>these people are just throwing it out the window because is a western opresive system

which people? who's throwing what out? are you basing this all of that powerpoint slide? because judging by those bullet points, it seems like that course is a survey of colonialism, and in that context it's absolutely valid to take the relationship of sciences and colonialist mechanisms to task, as the former was often yoked to the whims of the latter.

if sexy librarian was up there telling us biochemistry is just, like, a matter of opinion, maaaan, then there'd be a problem, but i see no evidence that that's what's going on.

you could take her presentation to task for not making that distinction, but shit, it's a powerpoint slide, it supplements the actual lecture, where (in my experience at least) that distinction is made

[Anonymous No.7656112]

>>7656107

basically this

I totally agree that anyone saying we should throw out science because of cultural biases is an idiot. But we shouldn't also ignore them because we're "almost perfect."

[Anonymous No.7656114]

>>7656105

i think by necessity they're a little loosey-goosey compared to, say, astrophysics, where you just need a calculator and a good set of glasses to get your results, but come on, pseudoscience? you're willing to throw out all of psychology and treat all mental illness with medication alone? that's a little silly, since psych has offered us some real insights, and things like cbt aka cognitive behavioral therapy aka cock and ball torture has proven benefits

[Anonymous No.7656121]

>>7656114
The problem with psych and the social sciences in general is that due to the nature of the work it is impossible to run proper controlled experiments. A speech by Feynman comes to mind right now. It talks about bad scientific integrity within the public and about the lack of controlled experiments in psychology.


http://www.californiachaparral.com/images/CargoCult.pdf

Here is an excerpt.

>All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For
example, there have been many experiments running rats through all
kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937
a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long
corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and
doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if
he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from
wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the
door where the food had been the time before.

>The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was
so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door
as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was
different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very
carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly
the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats
were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell
after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the
rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement
in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the
corridor, and still the rats could tell.

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.7656123]

>>7656121
>He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded
when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his
corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible
clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to
learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions,
the rats could tell.

>Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one
experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running
experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat
is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the
experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in
order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with
rat-running.

>I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next
experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young.
They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on
sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats
in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries
of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't
discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the
things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not
paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of
cargo cult science.

[Anonymous No.7656206]

>>7655894
How can this be a real university level class?

[Anonymous No.7656219]

>>7655894

How long till they die off?

[Anonymous No.7656230]

>race and science are both social constructs developed through colonization
>words have meaning

[Anonymous No.7656235]

>>7656219

Student debt and multiple companies not hiring them.

[Anonymous No.7656242]

>>7655894
>problem glasses
>possibly(?) some kind of mullato or generally unattractive

fucking hell every time

[Anonymous No.7656251]

>>7655894
Yo dawg, the concept of a social construct is a social construct. Let your jaw drop mother fucker.

[Anonymous No.7656265]

>>7656219
>mfw a there's a girl at work who looks like a hot version of this girl
>mfw she gives talks about what being a female latino in tech is like
>mfw she's actually a talented engineer

[Anonymous No.7656327]

>>7655942
The problem with this course is that it's based on post modern philosophy. Which basically is according to la wik "skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, history, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. " Though don't fool yourself by this, this skepticism is meant to be from a solipsistic perceptive(aka ignore reality) which inevitably quickly devolves to muh feelings.
http://artofericwayne.com/2015/02/04/how-postmodernism-has-worked-against-us/

[Anonymous No.7656369]

>>7655894
Isness is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.7656744]

>>7656121
>>7656123
>>Cargo cult science

that's really fascinating.

[Anonymous No.7656756]

>>7655894
>science is a social construct
yes
>developed through colonization
jesus these people really have some complexes

[Anonymous No.7656762]

>>7655894
>X is a social construct
Playing by your rules literally everything is a social construct, that doesn't mean anything. Things do not have an inherent meaning.

[Anonymous No.7656798]

>>7656265
i dont get it, what is your face when you encounter all that???

[Anonymous No.7656840]

[Anonymous No.7656845]

Science is a model which is pretty close to our observations. It is a social construct, but that does not make it less true.

I don't know how colonization comes in there.

[Anonymous No.7656847]

>>7656840
Stop trying to rile agitation and disgust with me, anon.

[Anonymous No.7656849]

>>7656840
Stop trying to rile agitation and disgust within me, anon.

[Anonymous No.7656861]

>>7655894
math relies on social rules which can be refused by others. see the various logics that we have today.

same thing in physics, where the admissible level for the statistics of the results is a consensus.

[Anonymous No.7656862]

>>7656091
>Buy science being social conduct would mean it's based merely on whims of scientists
Nope.
Car insurance is a social construct based largely on actuary tables, law, and economic forces, not anybody's whims.

[Anonymous No.7656871]

>>7656845
The point of this shit is that, to put in in extremely simple terms, anything that might prove them wrong needs to be explained away.

It's basically pic related. The tie into colonialism is to make it seem like science and facts are subjective and merely tools white people use to oppress minorities.

Some Dark Age shit.

[Anonymous No.7656875]

>>7656123
>And that is the
>experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in
>order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with
>rat-running.
>
false, the result of the experiment depends also on the rats.

remainder that induction is the a desperate fantasy hold only by degenerates.

[Anonymous No.7656880]

>>7656871
The Rockefeller etc deal is testable. The only thing in the way is a lack of resources or means to do so.

That doesn't make it untestable by nature. The rest of what they said had merit, but that dumb little tack on at the end kind of ruined it for me. They claim to want to understand how complex systems behave but readily throw out a testable they probably are personally biased against. The author is better than "privilege" believers, how?

What a hypocritical joke. Still, if I cared enough I'd see it valuable to cut the last part off and repost the rest.

[Anonymous No.7656886]

>>7656880
>They claim to want to understand how complex systems behave but readily throw out a testable they probably are personally biased against. The author is better than "privilege" believers, how?

Imagine the crowd this is reaching. They probably felt like they needed to take extra steps to not be seen like some "white right-wing tin foil blah blah blah" and come off to Tumblr as a 'moderate'.

[Anonymous No.7656891]

>>7656886
>>7656880
Or they were just of the mind that the theory is bullshit and untestable. I basically agree with every single thing they said, including that.

Id advise to you to not be like fucking tumblr, though, and get angry at something you see alot of truth and reason in because you dont agree with some little parts of it.

[Anonymous No.7656899]

>>7656862
If we really wanted to argue semantics, couldn't one argue that in order for law to not be "based on whim", and if law is accepted as a medium by which morality is imposed on society, then wouldn't universal objective morality need to exist to base said law off of?

And if universal objective morality exists, why have law at all.

So then law exists purely because morality is subjective, by definition based on the whims of a governing group (albeit whims which are generally held by a majority).

And if law is subjective, to what extend does this subjectivity propagate when applied to car insurance?

Intredasting.

[Anonymous No.7656915]

>>7656886
I know, I thought about that. And I've thought about things like it.

This is why I don't bother sharing my ideas much. I don't tend to pander and I try to be precise in getting the general idea across. As a result, often, people have little to latch onto.

>>7656891
>Or they were just of the mind that the theory is bullshit and untestable.
Which is what I said.

On another note, can someone tell me how the fuck pic related was wrong? This happens at least once per post. Fucking pricks.

[Anonymous No.7656918]

>>7656014
Gotta love smbc. That picture is gold

[Anonymous No.7656922]

>>7656899
Existence of objective reality doesn't mean there cannot be law. Law has to exist, be based on objective reality and objective morality and preserve the morality

[Anonymous No.7656924]

>>7656922
>objective morality

Does not exist.

[Anonymous No.7656925]

>>7656924
Yes it does

[Anonymous No.7656929]

>>7656922
I'm not concerned with objective reality. What I stated is that the function of law is to apply morality to a society. By definition, for this law to not be based somehow in subjectivity then an objective form or morality must exist to impose in the first place.

However, as we are aware that law is not universally agreed upon and is fraught with contradiction, it must be based in subjectivity to some degree.

Thus by extension systems which arise from the foundation which law provides are also susceptible to the opinions, whims, and personally held convictions of those who by power of writ have formulated these laws in the first place.

[Anonymous No.7656930]

>>7656925
Prove it.

(spoiler: we all know you can't and we're just getting the popcorn ready now)

[Anonymous No.7656968]

>Words have meaning
"Conclusions" is the adult meaning of the immature words "Take Aways".

[Anonymous No.7656990]

>>7655894

screenshot

[Anonymous No.7657040]

The Stewart - Calculus, Early Transcendentals link is broken.
MOOODS

[Anonymous No.7657055]

>>7656049
l m a o

I'm pretty sure every person working for goldman sachs knows he's just selling bullshit for money

[Anonymous No.7657056]

>>7655911

They're right words do have meaning, for instance a woman is someone with two XX chromosomes and a natural pair of functioning sex organs. Don't tell her that though

[Anonymous No.7657069]

>>7655894
>social construct
what does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.7657087]

>>7657069
"In the domain of social constructionist thought, a social construct is an idea or notion that appears to be natural and obvious to people who accept it but may or may not represent reality, so it remains largely an invention or artifice of a given society."

-google, 2015

So basically witchcraft.

[Anonymous No.7657094]

>>7657069

It doesn't exist unless unless otherwise stated by me.

[Anonymous No.7657101]

>>7657087

>but may or may not represent reality, so it remains largely an invention or artifice of a given society.

But their propositions and alternatives to these social construct are social construct themselves. They say their motives are to find what is "real" but their motive is nothing more than social engineering. They are pushing forward these ideas not because they are true, but because it will lead to the society they deem fit for humanity.

[Anonymous No.7657110]

>>7657087
>>7657101
So a social contruct is just a shared common opinion?

[Anonymous No.7657120]

What makes social constructs bad? Is there some kind of innate malice in them by existing?

[Anonymous No.7657134]

>>7657120

They try to invalidate societies tradional customs to make way for theirs. Look up the Frankfurt School of Ideology

[Anonymous No.7657183]

>>7657134
Arent traditional customs social constructs?

[Anonymous No.7657185]

>>7657120
They're bad science.

For instance, consider the notion that everyone should have a 10 character password with special characters and mixed case. It's easy to argue that this should increase security and that not doing it makes your password vulnerable to brute force attacks. It's also a widely held belief that's considered pretty much obvious.

There is a problem however. That is that no experiments have actually been carried out to see if enacting that password policy actually decreases the number of users who have their accounts compromised. Furthermore, in order to conduct such experiments one would have to have a very large sample size and the experiment would have to run for years. Worse than all that though, as soon as anyone questions the need for a password policy the first response is bewilderment (eg. how can anyone question something so obvious, the only explanation is that they don't understand techniques like rainbow tables) and then it's stubborn anger. People hold to this belief so firmly that it's difficult to consider the possibility that it' may be false. Any calls for evidence or scientific rigor are immediately met with responses calling it a waste of time because the claim is "so obviously true".

Once you've found yourself in a position where you're saying:
>X is obviously true.
>There is no evidence that anyone could show me that can convince me otherwise.
then you have found yourself in a very bad place philosophically.

I'm sure it's quite obvious that OP's picture is referring to the social sciences and the dodgy science prevalent among the public (because people then make bad inferences to support agendas all without having read anything more than a pop-sci news article written by a guy who didn't even read the research).

[Anonymous No.7657216]

>>7657185
But subjects like "race" and "science" aren't just one society's invention.

For example, almost Every person on Earth accepts that there are different races in one way or another. Demographics Data supports the fact that races are different.

Most of what i hear about the laundry list of social constructs i have heard follow suit with what you are saying as well. Both sides of the aisle seem to demand that individuals blindly believe in their ideas.

[Anonymous No.7657223]

>>7656065
That was his point.

The whole point we're trying to make is that "social construct" =/= "not real"

[Anonymous No.7657418]

It even has spell and grammar errors. Seriously any degree outside of stem and economics is a joke.

[Anonymous No.7657424]

>>7656065
Communication is not a social construct, its a natural human behavior.

[Anonymous No.7657436]

Of course science is a social construct. It didn't exist before society, did it? What a truism. Is it even supposed to be a loaded claim? Everything's a god damn social construct. If you got a problem with that then you have a very flimsy understanding of the world.

[Anonymous No.7657443]

>>7657424
Communication at a basic level is not a social construct, but language most definitely is.

Keep in mind that not only will a child deprived of human interaction never develop sophisticated language independently, but in fact after a certain language they will never be ABLE to learn any sophisticated language because the necessary development of their brain didn't happen. This is an extremely well-documented phenomenon. You could say that a human deprived of human interaction in that kind of way can scarcely be called a "natural human", but isn't that the point?

[Anonymous No.7657450]

>>7657443
after a certain age they will never....*

[Anonymous No.7657566]

>>7655894

Science is a social construct OP.

Read Karl Popper
OR get the tl/dr here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

[Anonymous No.7657578]

>>7655894
Holy shit look at her face. Those problem glasses are screaming "I have dad issues".

[Anonymous No.7657586]

>>7657578
i'd like to put my penice in her anuce

[Anonymous No.7657590]

>>7655894
Society is a social construct

[Anonymous No.7657592]

>>7656030
>but here in the real world (aka 4chan) econ is considered a science.
youmustbenewhere.jpg

This isn't the real world, and no, we don't consider economics a real science.

[Anonymous No.7657594]

>>7657590
Social constructs are social constructs

[Anonymous No.7657596]

>>7657443
But isolation is not tge natural habitat of a human. Colors arent a social construct just because blind people cant see them.

[Anonymous No.7657597]

Fucking social scientists I swear

[Anonymous No.7657598]

>Science is a social construct.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism:

>Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world. It displays understanding, significance, and meaning that are developed in coordination with other human beings. The elements most important to the theory are (1) the assumption that human beings rationalize their experience by creating a model of the social world and how it functions and (2) that language is the most essential system through which humans construct reality.

She's right, and then she hammers out her stupid socially constructed opinions.

[Anonymous No.7657605]

>>7657596
If isolation is not the natural habitat of a human then, by definition, the natural habitat of a human is society. How is something that humans have when within society and something they lack when deprived of society not a social contract? What kind of definitions are you using?

If you put three wild humans in isolation you will experience the same lack of development of language and certainly the same resistance to developed language. It is not a consequence of the interaction of humans on a genetic level, but it is a consequence of humans interacting with the social organism which they have co-evolved with (to such a degree that genetic development stages predict/presume the existence of society).

[Anonymous No.7657618]

>>7657605
Exactly. Language its self is not a social construct, but the languaged used is.

Language is not a social construct, but spanish is.

Besides, even if they cant understand complex spoken language, they will still have a reasonable ability to understand body language

[Anonymous No.7657629]

>>7657618
Where do you think this proto language archetype which you allude to- this Platonic ideal of language- exists? If it were genetic then why do the wild children not exhibit it? The only other place it could possibly exist (unless you actually believe in Platonic ideals) is in society.

You're trying to disguise the confuse the matter by using such terms as "body language" which, to the degree a wild child would understand it, is simply basic animal communication and that there is a fundamental difference (or at least an overwhelming practical difference) between it and what we know as language (whether it be written, spoken, or sign).

[Anonymous No.7657633]

>>7655894
Jesus christ I'm glad I don't go to a school that shitty.

[Anonymous No.7657634]

>>7656010
>Wouldn't fuck Ed Asner in a wig and glasses

[Anonymous No.7657643]

>>7655894
>129 replies
Dunno what I expected from /sci/

[Anonymous No.7657681]

if you accept the shitty premises that this kind of argument is based upen then literally everything is a social construct, nothing has any meaning, nothing actually exists at all, you can't know anything and everything is pointless.

these people are cancer to society

[Anonymous No.7657944]

>>7656798
this is my face

[Anonymous No.7657972]

>>7657629
Broca's area of the brain.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v6/n7/abs/nn1077.html

[Anonymous No.7657980]

>>7657629
A social construct is something that seems natural to humans, but is actually formed by society.

If its natural to humans, its not a social construct.

But society is natural to humans.

So i dont really understand the concept to begin with.

[Anonymous No.7658012]

>>7656875
>induction is desperate fantasy held only by degenerates

please go on, I think I know where this going, I like where this going but I can't quite be sure about my deductions

[Anonymous No.7658015]

Remember when people totally thought that measuring bumps on the head to determine personality was an actual science

It turns out it wasn't. That's what it means to be a social construct.

Newtonian physics is probably not gonna go the same way, but be wary of cold fusion and EM drives.

[Anonymous No.7658053]

>>7657087
If they don't know whether an idea represents reality, how do they know it's just an invention with no bearing on reality? What standard are they using to determine whether something represents reality?

[Anonymous No.7658066]

>>7657980

Not him but a social construct is a non tangible tool built by humans, for human use and no one else.

Numbers and language are tools built by humans for human use. They have no concrete impact on reality by themselves.

Science which utilizes both numbers and language itself would be technically a social construct too if it wasn't for the fact that it is essentially a catalog of physical phenomenons in reality that affects man, beast and the natural environment around us.

[Anonymous No.7658099]

OP is in high school you dumb cunts. What kind of university has those tiny desks with the seats attached to them.

[Anonymous No.7658119]

>>7656915
it means the green ones when it says street sign. you know, the signs that have the name of a street on them.

[Anonymous No.7658143]

>>7658099
Lots. Tutorial rooms often look like this.

Although the blackboard suggests it probably is high school.

[Anonymous No.7658166]

>>7656030
>economy is a science
Not an objective science so not it's not "real" science.

[Anonymous No.7658171]

>>7655894
it's so sad to see people "studying" that
no, the language of science is a social construct, the things science study are not

[Anonymous No.7658182]

>>7655894
Why do these people love to use the word "social" so much?

[Anonymous No.7658183]

>>7655894

Lol @ people getting into debt for this bollocks. Just lol @ the fact someone is actually being paid to teach this.

[Anonymous No.7658239]

>>7656861
wow haha. this is why european education is sooo much better :D

[Anonymous No.7658334]

Guys

Guys listen

Hey guys

Guys
Words have meaning

[Anonymous No.7658392]

>>7657216
It's all social data however. I mean you're essentially saying "X" exists because people believe it exists.

Actually trying to pin down the concept with hard modern genetics evidence has proven pretty much impossible. Even the last major proponents of a genetic definition for race abandoned it in 2004.

Instead, what people have done is develop population genetics as a sort of abstract generalization of the notion of race. It provides a lot of theory and tools for comparing different groups of people (where the groups can be defined in a variety of ways). Mind you, populations can't be used to prove the existence of races, instead they avoid the question altogether.

[Anonymous No.7658438]

>>7655894
Leftism is no longer counter-culture, it is the establishment. They became everything they fought against.

[Anonymous No.7658495]

>>7658183
>I didn't go to college, I'm so cool

[Anonymous No.7658499]

Your mom's a social construct.

[Anonymous No.7658515]

>>7658438
Been assimilated by the establishment more like. Identity politics is a honeypot, man.