How can anyone defend deconstructionism as anything other than selective sophistry?
How can anyone defend deconstructionism as anything other than selective sophistry?
Daniel Morris
Other urls found in this thread:
data.grammarbook.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
Nathaniel Watson
viva la third sophistic!
Nolan Young
because knowing history and not being a STEMfag you realize people's brains have prioritized wildly different categories and methodologies over time and that systems are often underpinned by ideologies and value judgments from outside culture
Aiden Collins
Okay, but what the fuck does that have to do with empirical evidence that can be reproduced in controlled conditions by anyone from any ideological or cultural background under properly controlled conditions?
Juan Anderson
On the face of it this image looks really dumb, but then you consider
And then you realize that a society that fetishises scientific facts as absolute truth isn't very scientific at all. Good science constantly questions itself and looks for hidden fallacies like whether or not "facts" we hold dear today were based on flawed premises informed by social thought at the time. Science ought to always hold the position of a philosophical sceptic like Hume
Asher Butler
>thinking you can separate science from ideology
you're too deep into the trashcan, science in itself is nothing but a tool, its ideology that shapes what it's used for
Robert Mitchell
No. Scientific facts are not an object of fetishism that derive their power from cultural fetishization. They derive their power from their ability to literally influence reality upon an empirical basis. The process of self-questioning leads to better and better theories over time, but calling scientific theory a "social construct" is intended to do nothing but facilitate a selective attack on the social implications of science by means of selective sophistry somewhat akin to the way that radical Christians can pull out a bible verse for anything.
Aaron Stewart
Your insecure vitriol is stemming from the fact that I believe you believe that something being born of a social construct inherently makes it weak. Which it does not. There are good social constructs which bore bad ideas and bad ones which bear good and everything in between. I would hope that the images professor was making the point that this is only one lense to view things in and that an empiricist scientist uses not only a variety of lenses but the lenses most suitable to the task at hand.
Chase Miller
Tagged the wrong guy meant
Eli Sanchez
Defending from an attack against empiricism calls for a certain level of vitriol lest we make the mistake of framing this as a purely intellectual debate in the vein of quibbling over the oxford comma. To attack the product of the scientific method as a social construct is akin instead to attacking the arithmetic of 2+2=4. Allowing such a critique to stand unchallenged, or to merely challenge it dispassionately, is to allow the absurd to dress itself in academic credentials as it sets fire to the very universities that award it such distinction.