How can anyone defend deconstructionism as anything other than selective sophistry?

How can anyone defend deconstructionism as anything other than selective sophistry?

Other urls found in this thread:

data.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/1-grammar-error/
twitter.com/realpeerreview
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

viva la third sophistic!

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

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?

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

>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

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.

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.

Tagged the wrong guy meant

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.

That's not what this type of thing usually means. It's people claiming that gravity is a white supremacist concept or that fluid dynamics are misogynistic.

He said, presupposing a stance outside of ideology from which to make this claim.

t. someone that gets his information about the sociology of science from /pol/

A test environment free from ideals, money constraints, flawed equipment and such would give excellent data - but it simply doesn't exist. Because this "frictionless vacuum" doesn't exist, empirical data can be twisted to suit people's agenda.

Have you never actually seen anything of that sort?

Checked


Deconstruction is a means of putting something in simple terms to make it easier to explain, usually to further one's understanding of the subject without over-complicating it.

The problem arises when you try to break down something incredibly intricate into something laughably generalized, essentially strawmanning.

I.e. "Lmao who even like agriculture it's just plants."

>usually means
>never seen
think hard, user.

No, not in any sense of candor.

This is the poison of deconstructionism talking. The claim that because no wholly perfect, wholly ideal testing environment can be readily produced that the process of science cannot weed out claims based upon the agendas of its experimenters. I'm sorry, do you think that with the car, being a product of Henry Ford who was an antisemite, has tucked away in its cylinders some hatred of the jews like an ideological gremlin hidden in the thermodynamics of combustion? No, it fucking isn't.

Deconstructionism is a pit, an abyss akin to hell. Its temptation for the lazy, the prideful, and all such academic sinners conjures forth demons who seek to feed more and more of academia into its yawning maw.

Can someone provide an example of this type of language ("Scientific facts are social constructs") being used outside of some SJW context? I think that might clear up the issue in some ways.

>this thread
Gas it

Like climate change

Sure. Scientific facts are social constructs insofar as they are the product of a society purposefully built from the time of the Renaissance to value empirical thought over other forms like superstition. Without the processes proposed by thinkers like Bacon there would be no such things as scientific facts they are the "construct" built by a group of ideas from multiple people over time. This does not invalidate them but rather proves the beauty of the society that made this line of inquiry possible.

>finds out of context picture of just a title page to a ppt, with females taking notes in front of it just to complete the subtle inclusion of the poster's existing childish gripes towards the present education system
>uses it as an "accurate" representation of a more complicated process
>constructs question in a way that simultaneously generalizes the previously mentioned subject while additionally demeaning anyone on a personal basis who may feel neutral or positive about it otherwise
>remaining on a detached enough ground to avoid actually taking a stance incase someone tries to reason or argue with you

t. Veeky Forums

All facts are theories.

Theories are shared ideas, which exist as a social construct.

No I want to see an actual published source that uses that manner of language.

The issue is that it can and does happen in the first place. Over time, we as a people, discover truths. However, that process takes time. For ages, people KNEW there was a god. People KNEW, through testing and science, that certain ailments were caused by bad humor.
An imperfect test environment is still useful. An imperfect test environment can, and does, yield useful data. It can (not will, CAN) also yield incorrect data. A human CAN twist facts to suit his purpose. A corporation CAN threaten to stop funding a project if it makes them look bad.

Look up a social constructionism abstract then

the BIG ruse

Google it yourself I ain't your fuccboi

Whenever I see threads like these I find myself wondering how our STEM friends think science is made. Do you think you just inject a bunch of axioms in a machine and it gives you a fact? Do you not realize that every information is filtered (emphasis on filtered btw) and exposed by human beings who can read that information in a number of ways?
We're in a literature board, the problem of interpretation shouldn't be new to anyone. Just consider how tobacco companies still haven't found any real link between smoking and lung cancer while (supposedly) spending quite a bit of money in research.

>how our STEM friends think science is made

Through deductive reasoning made on the basis of the best inductive cases that can be constructed, all of which is subject to the rigors of the scientific method.

The best place for deconstructionist examination is in the buildup to those inductive cases of reasoning, but to inject it into the scientific process once those inductive cases are being used to build deductive hypothesis that have since become theory is a gross sin against process.

Can we just can condemn deconstructionism because of it's harmful effects on modern neo-liberal Western society?

No need to argue about it's merits as intentions are as good as irrelevant without a future.

I'm inclined more to sideline deconstructionism because effectually it represents the sidelining of empiricism as much as reactionary sentiment does. Empiricism is as capable of fighting off bad faith arguments within it's own schema as deconstructionism is, but it has the added bonus of neither throwing the baby of science out with the bath water nor being party to the infinite fallacies that a condemnation of empiricism leads to.

>empirical evidence
doesnt exist
>reproduced
Doesn't give it any veracity.
>self-questioning
Nice ideology. You are about as skeptical as a rock.
Philosophy of science. I understand that you're an uneducated little STEMsperg in high school, but some of us aren't.

Fuck off back to plebbit, STEMsperg

>something being independently reproducible doesn't give it veracity

Kindly fuck off.

quads of truth

data.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/1-grammar-error/

Opaque writing autists need to off themselves

I agree, there isn't much of a choice, but am not keen on empiricism because it often destroys the transcendant aspects of god, love, beauty or will.
ie feels>reals

All things kept in their proper scope. Empiricism only needs to assert itself in times when it's under threat by reactionary sentiment or something like deconstructionism. Otherwise the machine can just keep chugging in the background.

yes, their selectivity is too transparent at this point to take their position seriously, for some reason they weaseled out of this for too long

No, fuck no. No amount of logic or reasoning will make that sentence in the OP true. Scientific fact is not a social construct; this is obvious. What isn't obvious is why people are so willing to defend nonsense in our society.

>do you think that with the car, being a product of Henry Ford who was an antisemite, has tucked away in its cylinders some hatred of the jews like an ideological gremlin hidden in the thermodynamics of combustion?

there's a twitter account that's responsible for checking that kind of thing
twitter.com/realpeerreview

>scientific fact: gravity exists.
NU UH ITS A CONSTRUCT MUH IDEOLOGY.

Lol.

...

Right? It's absurd.

...

...

...

...

Why would it?

>he doesn't understand nominalism
Every day I continue to be stunned by how uneducated this board really is.

Imagine trying this same thing with say capitalism, or liberalism... the absolute shitstorm that would ensue. Arguing dosen't work that way user. If you can't argue against something successfully, then just shitpost about it.

If scientific facts are social construcs how come their product like CRISPR can wipeout ppl based on dna or hydrogen bombs can delete cities

Ask them if Marxism is a social construct and thus worthy of criticism

The same way that the Belgian government artificially divided Rwanda into three pseudo-ethnicities based on who brown-nosed them the most, which lead to a genocide based on other social constructs such as assuming a government leader of an artificial ethnicity is acting according to the entirety, or that said government is planning a genocide.

But thats the argument that some science isn't really science or truth at all, but bullshit dressed up to look like its objectively true; in literature terms, it would be a poem that has all the structure of a classical piece, but doesn't actually contain any information—repeatedly writing nigger into a trochaic sonnet does not make it a sonnet anymore than throwing scientists on a board and having them "determine" shit and call it science. Now, if the argument was that some science isn't really science or true at all, then this premise would be more sensible, instead of this blanket, deconstructionist term that obfuscates its intended truth.

Holy shit you are so fucking stupid.
I hope you realize that, assuming 'truth' exists (it doesn't), falsities still can convince and apply. That doesn't mean the theory behind is 'true'. A consequence can occur from a false action or theory.
Assuming 'hurr i can do it again!' is a verification is incredibly sloppy.
Like, come on. The penicillin Jew didn't intent to make penicillin. Why do you think that applies more broadly? This is one of the major problems in science: it is teleological and therefore assuming a certain model of time and space are true, and that they are Platonist models.

If truth doesnt exist im sure that lead thru your brain wont kill you.

Wanna try? No? Eh, why?????

nice dude you got him niiiiiiiiiiiiice

U so salty. Looks like you didbt test the truth.

Deconstructionism is a useful thought process to go through, even if you still fundamentally believe in the value of science.

You're an actual retarded person aren't you?

I suppose it really depends what 'facts' they are talking about, but the statement its self really bugs me.

Some things are absolutely proven to be true, such as certain physical constants. There may be room to improve our measurements for accuracy infinitely converging on 100% but to say that "Scientific Facts are Social Constructs" strikes me as some really blatant SJW bullshit. It's a blanket statement that has no room for cases, or discussion. The next slide is probably "So we can see, as scientific facts are simply social constructs, gender is also a social construct because nothing biology teaches us is really true".

This picture was probably taken in a worthless class as a part of a worthless women's studies / gender studies degree.

>No amount of logic or reasoning will make true
And that's ideology everyone. Nothing

>useful
sounds spooky

OP
I believe this will generally be the defense youll get. Just remember that faults in justification for science, logic, maths, etc, does not justify whatever it is they wish to argue for.

They will simply rely on the fact that you will freak out that you cant give certainty. They bank on this. Certainty is a problem and one worth grappling with. An inability to give it does not justify deconstruction in the slightest.

>Do you think you just inject a bunch of axioms in a machine and it gives you a fact? Do you not realize that every information is filtered (emphasis on filtered btw) and exposed by human beings who can read that information in a number of ways?
That's statistics 101, retard. Stop playing the part of le learned intellectual.

Because whatever bias that is relevant to tricking us into believing a falsehood would be shown.

If I fudge my numbers to show that contrails sprinkle meth in the atmosphere and thus is evidence for meth "chemtrails", other people should be able to replicate what Ive found if what was observed is repeatable. Once others have done this theyll find that this isnt the case, and move on, leaving my lie and the bias that formed it in the past

>, do you think that with the car, being a product of Henry Ford who was an antisemite, has tucked away in its cylinders some hatred of the jews like an ideological gremlin hidden in the thermodynamics of combustion? No, it fucking isn't.
lol

>I'm sorry, do you think that with the car, being a product of Henry Ford who was an antisemite, has tucked away in its cylinders some hatred of the jews like an ideological gremlin hidden in the thermodynamics of combustion?

I just want you to know that you are the good that is left of this board

>the absolute state of Veeky Forums

Now I remember why I stopped visiting this board

teaching scientific facts are social construct is a social construct.

The Left: We're the side of science, you stupid conservatives!
Also the Left: Scientific facts are social constructs, you stupid conservatives!

Those aren't mutually exclusive positions.

Funny how nobody decided to reply to your post and instead greentexted his ebin le antisemite goblin joke.

How so? Seems pretty hypocritical to me to consider yourselves the champion of something while also claiming that something is bad.

>People KNEW, through testing and science, that certain ailments were caused by bad humor.
The scientific method has never been used to support the medical view of humours, it's medieval and doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. In any case, science doesn't prove anything with absolute certainty and scientists are well aware of this. Totally perfect lab conditions obviously don't exist, and scientific findings involve hypothesis because you can't control for absolutely everything, which is why scientific findings are written with caveats and reasonable doubts about the experiment.

What if they all have the same bias? To give a particular spicy example: Every climate scientist wants to keep his job and make it seem like it is of crucial importance for the survival of the species, so in a way they are all biased to keep showing the destructive effects of climate change. Every field of research wants itself to be seen as important and relevant.
Even beyond that, scientists in most fields today tend to overwhelmingly be male, atheist, left-leaning, white or asian, etc. There is a specific kind of person with a specific world view that tends to gravitate towards specific fields of science and that in a way means that biased reports can very easily be reproduced.

Reminder that anyone who unironically uses the word "deconstructionism" is a pseud who's never even read Derrida and talking to them is a waste of time

Racial diversity doesn't guarantee diversity of thought. Black scientists don't want to do "black science", they want to do science.

There's nothing inherently bad about being a social construct.

Neither do white scientists appropriating indigenous medicine want to do indigenous science either.
How much of a fucking autist do you have to be to not realize science doesn't exist in a vaccuum, cunt.

Is that really the level you want to talk at?

>science is beyond the reach of socio-political institutions
this is my favorite meme, I'm sure those pharma industries do not turn their patients into drug consumers instead of providing actual cures because its profitable on the long run

>black scientists can carry out science on the same level as white scientists
>that's wrong because bad practice exists in the pharmaceutical industry
Huh?

Except leftshits claim social constructs are bad. But scientific fact isn't a social construct anyways.

sorry meant to quote

Pointing out that something is a social construct isn’t necessarily saying it’s bad - but maybe that we should think critically about it, like gender. If it’s not useful the way it is now, we can suggest ways of changing it to suit our human needs.

...

I’m a STEM major and I find acknowledging that the scientific method is a construct, inherently has flaws, isn’t the only way, and doesn’t work for some situations, helps me make more informed decisions about how to approach a problem or read a study. Being critical of my field’s methodology has also helped me see when there’s a problem with a given study’s methodology as well.

"Scientific facts" is an oxymoron. The scientific method is Popperian Hypothetico Deductivism.

That basically means:
>make up any bullshit you want (Hypothesis) as long as it's falsifiable (has practical means to be proven false)
>try your very hardest to prove it false
>get your friends to try too
>the best you can ever do is say "I can't falsify it... for now"

There are no "facts" in science. Foundation of the statement is flawed. Rejected for community college Tumblr-tier bullshit by Armani Anarchist teenager who wants to be the next Rosa Parks.

I'm onto your jewish tricks...

This is the worst thread, everyone who has posted in here should kys

*teleports behind you*
Nothing personal, kid.