How does this make you feel?

no this comes from continental philosophy. specifically postmodernism. continental philosophy is basically theocrats, nazis, communists, and feminists trying to destroy western civilization by undermining the enlightenment

also,
post modernists actually believe that emotions are just as good of a source of knowledge as science.

>science is knowledge of society
take a participation medal you fucking winner

Aminuus

Get your popsci brainlet virgin ass off my board!

You mean Lysenkoism.

Is that "fact" a social construct as well?

>i'm going to use this to deny climate change and the fact that race doesn't exist! hurrr durrr

>baby's first philosophy of science
Our acceptance of observations as scientific facts has a lot more to do with our emotional investment in the idea than a rational assessment of the data. This has always been true of science.

literally everything is a social construct if we're using the overly broad criteria that OP's photo is using

...

It makes me wanna burn all my math books and invite Tyrone over to do my wife so I can watch

very good, more idiots out there which means less competition in the job market.

lolololol I can't fucking wait to pretend to care about socializem in public, then kill and eat everyone i can in private

Really? It makes me want to burn Tyrone and make my math books watch me do my wife desu

>can't actually refute it

maths has no basis in anything, it's a complete fabrication made by humans.

But still applied everywhere

>emotions are just as good of a source of knowledge as science.
So Is Earth flat just because it makes some people feel emotionally better?

And? We were discussing if it was a social construct or not, just because it's used everywhere doesn't mean it's not a social construct.

Fuck no, and user wasn't stating that as his belief, what the fuck are you getting at?

But it's 100% valid.

Each "Hard Science" is made of theories and empirical data. There are no real Facts, only theories.

Of course this doesn't mean every theory is just as likely as the other. It also doesn't mean a theory is bullshit only because there are inconsistencies. But the world of science is a constant struggle of competing theories, and it's not unusual that scientists behind common models are doing mental gymnastics to make new contradicting data fit in their Modell. After all it's a very political wolrd we are living in, the guy with 100+ publication who is the best Buddy of some Harvard dudes will always get more cred than some random ass dude who can show something differnt. Science is full of examples here.

Stop being naive, Folks.
People chose a defend a certain Interpretation because they WANT to believe in it. Still an order of Magnitude better than religion or philosophy, but far from perfect.

You don't even Need the heavy gödel guns for math.
Math is literally 100% Fantasy, and there is nothing wrong with it. It all starts with assumtions:

Let's imagine we have objects called "numbers" and let's also assume we can have a relation < with the following properties (...) THEN we can conclude the following..

It's not like we can or should to prove anything in math. It only has to be consisten in itself and that's why it works so great.

The closer you get to humans, the messier and more contradictionions.

user gets it

>Each "Hard Science" is made of theories and empirical data. There are no real Facts, only theories.
no, there are laws in hard science.

"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation."

Maybe she means “science is a human endeavor and our explanations for natural phenomena are bounded by the society that created them”

Are prime and Fibonacci numbers a social construct? If so, then perceived reality is a social construct too. And I don't think the definition of social construct streches that far.

You just chose a differnt Name for the same Thing.

There are "laws" that proved to be wrong (if oyu Google you find "Baer's laws of embryology", "Ptolemy's law of refraction" or "Newton's sine-square law of air resistance".. for what it's worth).

And there many are other "laws" that are more rules of thumb.

I can define the fibonacci numbers as 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21..
And I can define 17 genders called "man", "woman", "xis", "xer"..

Definitions are exactly the same as constructs.

>perceived reality is a social construct too

That's some deep shit man, let's not go down that rabbit hole too deep.

Rather don't be so butthurt about the term "construct". It's all about finding the truth, but the truth likes to Play hide and seek and it's a great player.

>only women in the picture

really making me think

You can call anything Fibonacci numbers and you many give 1,1,2,3,5,... any name you want, but this sequence is rooted in reality (as conscious creatures see it) and is not a social construct (as society or most people or whatever see it)

Again, unless you like to redefine already existing definitions like retards from certain colleges do, but in that case this thread is useless

so are women's right to vote, what's your point?

They essentially are. A fact is only as good as the process that creates it. That's why scientific fact is not the sane thing as "truth" and can be overturned by further science.

Really? It makes me want to burn my wife and make Tyrone watch me do my math books.

It made me want to burn my books and make my wife watch Tyrone do me

Sorry, I haven't got the time to have this conversation right now.

I'd like to say that there are Patterns and those Patterns are not random. But it's a little bit more complicated. There are many WTFs in science, so only because we can pinpoint some Things doesn't mean we have the big Picture at all.

Not even talking about a universe that explodes from nothing, where space and time are basically the same or some things are there because we noticed them.

But I was always baffled about the pythagorean comma. Why are twelve perfect fifths and seven octaves not the same tone? They should, because they are the two "purest" intervals, but they aren't.

And if you connect the highest point on each continent with each other you get..

We don't know jack shit about so many things. There is some serious fuckery with reality so we might as well call everything a construct.

>There are no real Facts, only theories.
fuck off Popper

...

finally, someone is brave enough to speak the truth

1+1=MUHFEEL

It was a fact that flies had 4 legs in the 400s, that the moon was a perfect crystaline sphere in the 1400s, and that heavier than air flying machines were impossible in the 1800s, according to the best scientific knowledge available.

Those were facts and those were also social constructs. Human knowledge is messy and there's no answer key to find out what the Truth really is.

>made of empirical data
>there are no real facts

semantic garbage. here is a fact: the person that proves that the speed of light is not constant, will not be a major in something that ends with "studies"

>approximations and partial models are reason that YOU CANNOT KNOW NUTHIN
KYS

Its not that you can't know nothing you typingn ape its the fact that you can't ascertain with certainty that the knowledge you have isn't tainted by your world view or other subjective experience. Those are examples from history where people who unequivocally were intelligent, and knew all of the facts that were available in their experience, were completely fuckin wrong. We can go more in depth with medieval medicine, with prenewtonian mechanics and optics, all sorts of things. The fact that we (we being groups of scientists, as well as other social groups like nations or idiotic memers on Veeky Forums) have these biases and can look through history and see how clearly people in the past have been effected by them should give us pause when we claim we have knowledge that is untainted. It doesn't mean we can't know anything and it doesn't mean we can't improve our methods, but do you really think that today there isn't something we don't know due to our own biases? Or that our own biases (both individual and broad based across society) push people to look down certain avenues of inquiry and not others?

>empirical data.
>no real Facts

>>>/reddit/

But Earth shape is just a Social Construct.
If ancient people agreed that Earth was Flat so Earth was flat.
If modern people agree that Earth is Round so Earth is round.
But some people don't agree that Earth is Round.
So Earth is Flat or Round depending on people emotional feelings.

Earth shape is a Social Construct just as Gender or Race.

Earth & Universe aren't even real. It's just a Social Construct.

It doesnt make me feel
I havn't felt in a long time

>maths has no basis in anything
Take some farmers trying to divide their land and cattle. Add a tax hungry overlord and some basic logic and presto: geometry.

Let's play spot the freshmen. I win

Reality is indifferent to our fucking feelings.

>A social construct
It depends on how you phrase it, in the way is written is like mathematics is just a theory without any logic behind it, and there is somehow better ways of solve it, or it could be incorrect based on what we know.

It is like saying gravity is just a theory or that 1+1 is not equals two, they are just doing analyzation and mental gymnastics.

If you are doing semantics, everything is a social construct, your perception is, therefore nothing matters nothing will ever matter and you should just kill yourself.

Literally there is a more useless "science" then modern sociology and modern philosophy?

>HUR DUR WE CAN´T ACCOMPLISH NOTHING THEREFORE NOTHING MATTERS AND WE ARE RIGHT, GIB MONEY PLEASE

strawman. no respectable scientist would every claim to be a dealer of "facts".

no such thing as scientific facts. only statistically relevant observations and theories that are waiting to be disproved

ghetto medieval theories of magnetism -> electromagnetism -> quantum electrodynamics -> fuckin magnets, how do they work??

>everything is a social construct, your perception is
Maybe you should learn what words mean before you use them.

>therefore nothing matters nothing will ever matter and you should just kill yourself
Who said social constructs don't matter? Are you retarded?

>HUR DUR I READ A SENTENCE AND I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND THAT SENTENCE IS WRONG WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT

>Math has no basis in nothing

This is by far the most stupid thing I ever read in my entire life, you should leave this board simply by saying stupid shit go to /pol/ and never come back, or even better leave Veeky Forums.

Math is based on negatives, positives, and the possibility to count things that we humans can measure.

+ Plus: Addition or a a certain number of positives

- Negative: taking away or a a certain number of negatives

Saying math is just a "thing" is simply stupid, if you are pretend it is just based on something we simply agreed is basically saying human perception is equal to nothing and it is not even real, and if you believe that, well why should we believe in you?

Human perception kept us alive until here, and what your science has ever done to us?

Social construct is something created in a society which does not exist in the natural world.

So if you claim science is just a social construct, your mere observation of a natural world is a social construct by itself, I don´t think you know what you are talking about.

>Reality is a social construct that hurt muh feelings
Just a excuse for Denying Reality

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

read up on some descartes, everything is a human construct including logic

>social
>relating to society or its organization.
A social construct is something made by a group of people.
How is my perception of the world in any way related to society or it's organization?
So, no, you're still wrong

human construct is not equivalent to social construct

Brainlet please. If you had an IQ over 75 you would realize that calling something a social construct is not equivalent to saying something is wrong

statement presumes the validity of the sociological axiom of "the social construction of reality"

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality

science shows reality is objective, for instance: 1+1=2 is not subject to sociological axioms

what about the peano axioms which can be seen as the basis of math (they basically describe counting and natural numbers)

these axioms are based on nothing, just commonly believed to be true, but there is no proof. math is based on "nothing", which is not to say that math is useless or false.

Gravity, Electricity, Genetics & Evolution are just Social Constructs.

Could not agree more, modern philosophers and sociologists think they somehow are being enlightened by so much rationalization and mental gymnastics.

While they don´t realize they are humans, and are probably experiencing some psychological shit, like denialism.

If you put one hundred people diagnosticated with narcissism, in their perspective all of them will be the best of there.

:HUR DUR LET ME CONTINUE MY MENTAL GYMNASTICS

>SOCIAL CONSTRUCT IS MADE BY A GROUP OF PEOPLE
>NOT SOCIETY OR IT IS ORGANIZATION

What is called a group of people? yes that is right society, a nation is formed of several medium societies(which are formed by micro societies) forming a single society, you are not even worth my time anymore, you basically don´t know what the fuck you are talking about.

You are defending sociology and yet don´t even know basic concepts of it.

>How is my perception of the world in any way related to society or organization?

DUN´T KNOW NIGGA MAYBE MARKETING? SLAVERY WAS SOMETHING REALLY COMMON A WHILE AGO, AND EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS COOL, BECAUSE AT LEAST THE DEFEATED MAY LIVE.

Leave this board please you don´t have the IQ to stay here

>sjw predicates something about scientific facts, implying their exists something such as a scientific fact
>you agree with sjw and then proceed to claim there is no such thing as a scientific fact

mfw chopping your contradicti-onions

Sure, but that's not what those people are talking about
They are talking about knowingly speaking out against results of well known and understood measurement methods of natural phenomena
Those people aren't skeptical of groundbreaking proposals in quantum science, they are talking about the earth being fucking flat because of muh feels

So math

Was created, perhaps say, constructed

By a social group?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Having to write and study about topics in class - Makes you stupid.

Taking a philosophy class that asks you to question the nature of facts or science - Makes you a liberal retard.

Remember; when you're talking about, asking about, or having to study about stuff that involves society's influence on science, or how scientific fact can be altered and distorted by social pressure, well you're just being stupid.

The fact that these mongoloids would even dare put a sentence like that up on a fucking white-board is disgusting. -Science is law-. The fuck do these libtards think they're going to gain from discussing shit like this.

This is an valid question...
This is an logically abstract form of proving math, but yet, one apple plus one apple is two apples, if you multiply a certain times you will have a certain number, divide same thing

an 1 is a positive of something, because it is something that it is, it exists, is affirmative

Then comes a philosopher and say, what it is "exist"?

If it is abstract? of course it is, but it does not make something less of it as to even be tough on schools, even more as some big revelation of sociology or philosophy.

In the way is showed on the picture indicates as something invalidating science, or to people regard exacts science as an opinion.

In psychology everything is abstract so the slide show started with a null statement, exactly like 0 equals nothing

>nazis, communists, and feminists
Those are modernists though, not postmodernists (except for postmodern feminism). And theocrats are premodernists even. Postmodernism is only applicable to social problems, it doesn't study nature. Beware of burger wrong memes, they have little truth in them.

Savage

Depressed and suicidal

No, the laws describing them are.

>>SOCIAL CONSTRUCT IS MADE BY A GROUP OF PEOPLE
>>NOT SOCIETY OR IT IS ORGANIZATION
So you take what I just explained to you and pretend I disagree with it? You really are retarded.

Just so you understand with your limited mental capacity:
The greentext was a definition of "social"
The next sentence was the same in simpler words for you (but apparently not simple enough)

>DUN´T KNOW NIGGA MAYBE MARKETING?
Yes, perception is used for marketing, which is a social concept. That does not mean all of perception is social. Even if there were no other people/living beings/society around me, I would still see and hear and feel things - therefore perception as a whole cannot be a social construct.

>SLAVERY WAS SOMETHING REALLY COMMON A WHILE AGO, AND EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS COOL, BECAUSE AT LEAST THE DEFEATED MAY LIVE.
Yes, morals is a social construct. But morals is not perception. Still wrong

Are you retarded? I just explained why on sociological terms you are wrong, every group of people is a society, goddammit you are dumb as fuck.

>That does not mean all of perception is social. Even if there were no other people/living beings/society around me, I would still see and hear and feel things - therefore perception as a whole cannot be a social construct.

Prove it. a song that it is enjoyable for me, maybe it is not for you. My red maybe it is not your red.

How can we be sure of things without individual perspectives? ohh yeah science.

Bye this was my last reply

BTW morals is objectively based on empathy, therefore it is not really only a social construct is it?

Morals can variate to people to people, so make up your mind, there where plenty of nazis who written how bad was what they were doing to the Jews

>Are you retarded? I just explained why on sociological terms you are wrong, every group of people is a society, goddammit you are dumb as fuck.
Yeah, that's what I said from the beginning. Thanks for catching up

>Prove it. a song that it is enjoyable for me, maybe it is not for you. My red maybe it is not your red.
So perception is not a social construct, but something that everyone has for themselves? Guess what, that's what I said from the beginning (with some exceptions)

>BTW morals is objectively based on empathy, therefore it is not really only a social construct is it?
If you existed, but you were the only living being to exist - no society or anything - morals would not exist for you. And empathy is 100% social, you cannot feel empathy without other beings to empathize with

>Morals can variate to people to people, so make up your mind, there where plenty of nazis who written how bad was what they were doing to the Jews
Just because something is a social construct that does not mean it's the same for everyone, just that it's (strongly) influenced by a society. And it's also not like there exists only one, absolute society - e.g. you are part of your family (a small group of people influencing you socially), but you are probably also part of other groups influencing you. And since it's very likely that nobody in your family is part of exactly the same social groups, nobody else in the world is part of the exact same social circles, which means nobody in the world exactly shares your social influences

>Yeah, that's what I said from the beginning. Thanks for catching up
No you didn´t, or you don´t know how use the green text

>So perception is not a social construct, but something that everyone has for themselves?

No I open the question, and it lies on you to prove it.
In psychology, you are not born more found of a color, the color will fit better your personality, and your understanding of the color relies on society...

>But muh genetics

genetics kind correlates but are not actually "facts", because there are several studies that show nurture being way more important.

In neurology nurture makes more sense as well.

So meh, we reached a place where You and I can be correct, WHACHA YOU GONNA DO NOW?

So you can catch up, nurture equals society.
And even if there is a real "you" that lives outside of influence of society, it does not worth nothing in the academic world, because it is completely subjective(as I said with the narcissists)

I don´t think you understand what my problem is with what OP said.
In the picture Science is being showed as something subjective, almost like an opinion, which is not true, the statement is stupid, you get it now? You said and I quote: "Math has no basis on nothing"

And this is wrong, and that is why all societies accept as true, and only individuals like yourself say otherwise

>If you existed, but you were the only living being to exist - no society or anything - morals would not exist for you. And empathy is 100% social, you cannot feel empathy without other beings to empathize with

Now you are just extrapolating, if you lived in a dark environment for the first year you would not be able to see light for the rest of your life. Does that mean sight is a social construct?

If only you existed, you won´t be alive, so your statement does not make sense.

You have an part of brain to empathy, whether you stimulate or not ir another deal

>song that it is enjoyable for me, maybe it is not for you
That's not perception: sound doesn't carry joy.

>if you lived in a dark environment for the first year you would not be able to see light for the rest of your life. Does that mean sight is a social construct?
>dark environment = society
Ok, I give up, you win

No, you only made the case, that science is building models of phenomena we observe and that scientific facts cannot be interpreted without that model.
You didn't make the point, that scientific facts are a social constructs. Or do you believe that the space time distortions caused by black hole mergers are social constructs too?
Also you can prove things in mathematics, that is the whole point right? That you need axioms doesn't change that.

I don't think empathy is what should determine morals, I think pain is.
Regardless of certain isolated communities thinking that murder or rape is common and acceptable, we can still say that it is not because the victims of the actions are against it being done to them.
If we were dealing with some kind of isolated community that developed some kind of universal masochism then that'd be a different issue. The only real world application of this "morality is subjective" argument is whether the first world countries should intervene in morally destitute countries.

In a way they are, they are made so we can interpret the universe in a way we can understand

>But the world of science is a constant struggle of competing theories
They all agree on facts though.

I hate redheads too.

So it's kind of a consensus of a group of scientists? A social agreement, or construct, upon things assumed to be facts if you will?

>Gravity is a social construct lmao

Our version of abstraction required for us to understand gravity is, but no its existence is not a social construct.

You're convoluting abstractions and real world phenomena

Dumber every day

God is a social construct
Prove me wrong

Am I a social construct?

Like I need context before I jump to any conclusions about the lecture.

Your feelings don't matter on the internet either. I could tell you to kill yourself and I wouldn't care. Does that make me a psychopath or a social construct?

You sent me a message that I can read. You are either real or I'm a schizo.