Видео

As an anti-realist instrumentalist, I believe that scientific theories are practical tools for predicting and understanding the world, not necessarily uncovering its absolute truth. This perspective isn't 'woke' or 'Marxist'; it’s rooted in a long tradition of thought, from ancient Platonists, who argued our grasp of reality is hazy, to philosophers like Kant and Nietzsche, who suggested that we can never fully know the world as it is, only how it appears to us through our limited human faculties. So quite literally, yes. Science is indeed a social construct, albiet a very useful one that enables us to make predictions and manipulate our environment. It's not the ark of the covenanant or the holy grail man.

Seriously, You made Propaganda Video. People asked for transitional fossil for Common Ancestry to Human. You didn't share even 1. Because all the fossils are either Cham-like or Human-like. 2nd, Evolution through sexual selection is the reality. Mule is one the example. So existence of such species is not the prove of Evolution by Natural Selection. Why stupid people are so confused. They don't even understand the argument and make stupid videos like this

I think one of the problems underlying the "scientific facts" issue is that we tend to forget that science is FULL of interpretations. You cannot just apply a model blindly. And in those interpretations lie most of the socially constructed parts of science. As an optical engineer, I can give an example of this by questioning what does "good optical quality" means. Maybe we mean diffraction limited optical systems, maybe it means optimal radiometric power transfer, maybe it means that we want distortion to be reduced, not caring a lot about sharpness. So if you adhere to either extreme: "Science is a complete social construct" or "Science is completely impartial and is based on facts that hold always and anywhere in the universe" you are, indeed, oversimplifying. Science is build on models and data and interpretations of those models and that data. You cannot avoid the socially constructed interpretations, otherwise, you are not doing science. you are just doing data collection.

How many disciplines of science prove Kent wrong.

I cant understand therefore its wrong. Kent H.

When the conversation started I noticed that Peter has a very intense, focused look, almost like he has a fighter mentality. Later he briefly mentioned Jujitsu , so I guess he practices the art. Makes sense.

What about the claim that, although predictive power and accuracy are predicated on universal values, we shouldn't, for instance, try to predict/control human behavior with the knowledge we produce? Sure, maybe our knowledge will be objective and way superior if compared to other models adhrence to the big 4, but what about It's political implications? Isn't It safe to say that almost every knowledge we produce has, at least to some degree, political implications/goals? I'm asking because I'm a psychology major and this is an idea that has been hammered into my head ever since I started taking the course. All of my teachers are very clearly social constructionists. I know you put emphasis on the is/ought distinction, but I wanted to get a picture of what this effectively means for psychology as a science. For example, a lot of my teachers argue that the goal of psychology shouldn't be to "serve the capitalist system", but rather offer refuge from It and emancipate humanity by criticizing systems of oppression that are invisible to us in our daily lives. This is a common criticism they make towards therapeutic modalities like CBT, which supposedly try to get rid of their clients "as fast as possible", "only fix the superficial stuff", "misatribute societal problems as being individual problems", etc. Yet, CBT is often characterized everywhere as being the most evidence-based therapeutic modality, while the rest is called garbage. My teachers argue that the traditional experimental logic characteristic of the natural sciences cannot account for the singularity of each individual, often more than not erasing that very singularity, treating people as if they are the same when they very clearly aren't. And the replicability crisis only serves to land the final blow. From there, they argue in favor of a relativism that situates psychology not as a discipline that studies nature (a discovery), but a discipline that studies an invention of history and society, thereby compromising the entire field of study by reducing It to politics. This shift from discovery to invention impedes any progress, as any (otherwise) progress merely becomes another point of view with It's own (political and epistemological) blind spots. I, however, am skeptical of this "historical analysis of ideas", since It serves just as well to legitimate certain schools of thought highly scrutinized (like psychoanalysis) as simply being "another completely valid option between many". In essence, they argue that, even if science isn't a social construct, psychology, as It's own separate thing, is a social construct. (And all of my colleagues seem to endorse what our teachers say. If I expressed my opinions out loud in class, everyone would likely label me an 'oppressor', for lack of a better term.) Oh yeah, they also use an interpretation of Kant's philosophy to argue that psychology is purely speculative, as in analytical a priori in nature, just as the concept of God or the Big Bang. Which would imply there's no right or wrong answer when It comes to asserting whether god exists, if the Big Bang happened, or whether certain paradigms in psychology are valid or not. Proposing that these questions be rather solved by faith or personal preference. And just to be clear, they are the ones stating this is what "analytical a priori" means, not me.

Discovered you from your appearance on Peter Boghossian's channel, and I'm so inspired by the depth of thought and the work that goes into all your content. Looking forward to diving deeper into your stuff soon.

I've been following you for a decade.

How old was Adam day one, well seeing as how he never existed I'd say zero, and as for things that never existed, Kunt's brain is right up there.

15:25 when you start your discussion on the pluraity of science... Did you think that... Maybe... Science can be subjective? Not all, let alone most, but CAN be. That inherently makes it constructed... Sciencific Fact IS constructed. Science is MEANT to be scrutinized to reach as close to objectivity as possible. No one theory is completely, purely, 100% objective. To say "I am 100% objective" or "That is 100% objective" is nothing but ego masking itself. Construction and subjectivity don't need to be scary buzz words. Scientists at their core study what fascinates them, is that not subjectivity? When forming a question on a subject you want to explore, is that not subjective construction? Using the statement "Scientific fact is a social construct" to dismiss all science or support all science is silly.

Science is the social proccess by which we derive collective knowledge and is therefore governed atleast partially by social processes and is therefore a social construct, this does not make it any less useful but denying the fact that science is a social construct only makes our understanding of the tool that is science worse

"The reason why conciliate background propositions' explanatory efficiency and optimal flexibility are important factors in deciding between under determined models is because there exists an infinite number of possible models for any given set of facts, but the ones which have the greatest predictive power consistently possess these features." Not only are there an infinite number of possible models for a given set of facts, there are also an infinite number of possible facts because there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses to be tested. While the fact that there are infinitely many facts shouldn't be taken to mean that every possible statement is a fact or that there exist sets of facts to justify picking every possible model, it does suggest that it's at least reasonable to say that a model's explanatory efficiency and flexibility are affected by the facts available to construct models from, which are in turn dependent on which hypotheses were tested. If this is the case, then it's at least worth serious consideration that social factors in the hypothesis selection process could affect our perception of various models' explanatory efficiency and flexibility. When we consider what these other models might look like we must consider that they may generate predictions about entirely or partly separate regions of proposition space which would, in turn become nth order propositions of yet more models. This all suggests that insofar as hypothesis generation and selection processes are influenced by social factors, that the set of facts available to construct models from, and therefore the models that seem most optimal, and what further facts and models are derived from them are too, and that therefore to that extent, science is a social construct.

good to have you back

You started off with definitions. Already a social construct if youre using a social phenomenon such as language to describe things. Definitions themselves are the result of the biases perspectives and beliefs of the person pr persons engaged in the activity of defining. These things must be negotiated in order for people to work together effectively. Science at its most foundational is a social construct. It doesnt mean science doesnt produce outcomes that help us more closely understand reality and how things work.

12:35 "Have you played Civilization?" My eyes lit up when he said that.

What kind of Incel bullshit is this?

damn this video is 6 years old. hope you got laid at least once between then and now bro🙏

I think you should stop making this slop and go away forever.

I’m not going to watch you’re video because you’re just objectively, indisputably wrong. The issue is you don’t understand what it means for something ti be socially constructed. Whether that’s because you’re incapable of grasping abstract concepts due to lower than average IQ or simply too lazy to engage with the meanings of words, I couldn’t guess. But making this video was a waste of your time and a waste of everyone’s time who watched it. I hope you aren’t making this bottom of the barrel slop anymore, for your own sake.

Obviously not all paradigm shifts are determined by cultural shifts, but one cannot ignore the effect social values have on scientific knowledge. Evolution indeed was much popularized as a way to dehumanized non-European indigenous people, and later also Jews and other minorities. It doesn't make it wrong, useless or equivalent to ID, just that it both influenced and was influenced by the cultural values in which it was created. As another example, homosexuality was scientifically considered a mental illness, until the paradigm shifted, thanks to cultural shifts. An example I like from mathematics is how European thinkers, such as Euler and Cauchy, are always credited for their theorems, but non-European ones, such as Al-Khwarizmi or Jamshid al-Kashi, who more or less invented the quadratic formula and the law of cosines, but were not credited for them. In conclusion, cultural values (which by the way do not even have to be about class or race, even traditions unique to specific academic institutions) don't determine uniquely what counts as scientific knowledge and what doesn't, but their effect is undeniable, and should be acknowledged and addressed when doing academic work.

32:21 he puts a spin on it... A SPINOZZZAAAAA!!!!11 AHHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA... :P

Perhaps the issue isn't that science is a social construct, but that our means of understanding it are not free of social constructivism. The language that we use to understand and communicate our scientific findings is something that I can definitely agree to being socially constructed.

This entire debate literally only exists because social constructivists refuse to admit that actions have objective consequences and that there exists a best method for ascertaining the rules of nature in order to know how to best achieve ones objectives.

1230 gmt 17 8 24 The duck was brilliant thanks

The starting section with the definitions and proposition space are fascinating (especially how you elegantly avoid spicy topics such as 'truth' and 'observer-independent reality'). Is this specifically your work or an adaptation? Where can I read more about this?

Dr. Fatima’s new video on this is worth watching

Of course science is a "social construct". See "Enlightenment". The special feature of "the scientific method", in this context, is its inclusion of 'the not yet known', aka the unknown, and the disputed, into it's meta belief system. Most folks think science is 'text book facts', in the same way that many religions have a 'good book' of asserted 'facts'. It's the meta level of the scientific method which is itself a 'social construction' that makes it different from most 'religious' beliefs (each of the religions are constructed within their communities). Good science has inclusion of the heretics (see 'anti-acids' for stomach ulcers!), as long as they work with the method, even if the results are controversial. Most taught science is re-inforcement. Such as school ohms law being verified by meters that are calibrated using ohms law, testing artefacts that have been selected because they follow ohms law (try measuring the resistance of earth in a plant pot!). Science does have a pending problem with the quantum hidden (unknowable) variable producing randomness issue that current expectations of determinism finds 'difficult'. The real problem is deciding who the audience for the discussion is. Is it the science deniers and religious nuts, or is it the science heretics diverging from the dull main stream (be careful, you'll get an ulcer..)? One needs to at least get a feeling for the alternate perspectives, despite the orbit of Russel's Teapot, climate misinformation and flat earthers. Also worth considering: 1) Bohn, R.E.: ‘Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge’, in ‘The Economic Impact of Knowledge’ (Elsevier, 1998), pp. 295-314, also in Article in Sloan Management Review · January 1994 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-7009-8.50022-7

I hate to say it, but I'm more on the coffee shop rabble on this one. To deny this would be to suggest science right now functions differently to how it has throughout the past.

Great video, makes me inspired to learn physics!

I just started the video, and it seems like your problem of traditional sources of meaning being eroded has an easy solution : find new sources of meaning. Meaning is subjective anyway. It's something that a mind decides, not something that is objectively true; and yes, even if that mind is God. And this is why people that are born atheists do not struggle with the question of meaning. This is a struggle for religious people that have been told that a powerful god's opinion is very important and built their lives around it, but then end up realizing that this god does not exists. I don't have time to watch further for now so i'll continue later.

It's pretty clear the "feelings" Zoe is starting with when choosing her "facts" are that all groups of people are of equal intelligence and no group is more predisposed towards committing crime. I also feel this is correct personally; however, two points: 1. There is no reason to make a definitive statement on this unless you have sufficient data to draw a conclusion (which I don't think we have and would be pretty dang hard to gather, though people have tried) and 2. If we value all people, then it's desirable to understand how to build a world together that best ensures people can live valuable lives. Understanding human psychology will be valuable for this, but these questions about average IQ and crimes will never matter as much as trying to understand how best to successfully educate people or trying to understand the factors involved in why people make anti-social choices (like crime). Truth will never be the enemy of creating a better world because making a better world is a choice that we make. It's what we choose to do in reflection of the truth that matters.

25:15 - My one disagreement, Ben "rap isn't music" Shapiro (friends with Matt "slavery was good for black people" Walsh) probably would be interested in this claim. But maybe that's just because things have gotten more extreme in 2024.

I watched Synecdoche, New York. Hope you’re well.

epistemology does lead to morality, but you have to go to down to the basic axioms. with enough reduction, epistemology becomes self-evident (or as the duck calls it "naturalist"). people who dont align their axioms with their behaviour are considered mentally insane.

If you do any public speaking under your real identity and any of it gets recorded on the internet then they're going to be able to use AI to find your real identity like has happened to Beff jezos and others.

Are experiencing 'feelings' not a 'fact'?

Your statement that science asomptotically moces towards truth fails to account for the island of knowledge and the shores of ignorance first proposed by Physicist Marcelo Gleiser. The more we learn the more we learn we dont know. The more knowledge gained the greater ignorance grows. And so paradoxically as knowledge grows we move further from truth.

Massive misunderstanding about the definition of a "social construct" the concept of a bridge is a social construct. "Science" is a philosophical object, a social technology, a sociocultural process, and yes also a social construct. Point of fact scientists are humans who have to determine what research to do and what time and resources to invest into that research. The reason string theory was studied over other theoretical models or frameworks is a sociological and cultural question.

I appreciate the Croc. Had a lovely opportunity early to depict the epistemological mysticism of the logico-scientific foundational (groundless) faith system... but does it more & more adroitly ... appreciated the fundament + coherence + valuation of what you count as evidence building of mythologies (whether science, religion, economics, etc)

Awesome interview, will be sharing with friends. Thanks for the upload KC.

I'm currently trying to swtich from mech eng to physics. i'm very excited to see it happen. I hope my college allows it.

I disgustered athest tong tac tic big wurd jibber jabber besmirch frute of nolege

It's simply astonishing to me that this grown adult man fails to understand terms and concepts as simple as "begging the question." It's beyond baffling.

I am definitely I guess what you would call a weak social constructivist in that I see it as rather absurd to even suggest that science _isn't_ a social construct, but it also seems rather absurd to try and dismiss science for this reason.

God created everything the earth the universe man .evolution is nothing but pseudoscience.

Meaning, according to academic consensus has three components namely purpose, significance and coherence. - Purpose is your life goals - Significance is whether your life (and it's purpose) is having positive impact on others. - Coherence is seeing that your life activities including the goals are in order and not chaotic. It gives you a sense of clarity. If we agree to this academic definition, then the answer as to whether people can achieve meaning in life without resorting to religious mythologies is yes. We can achieve meaning by setting life goals, assessing whether it is significant (i.e. impacting others positively) and then living each day in such a manner that it doesn't contradict those convictions (coherence). This is my thought.

The idea that I can understand what the duck lizard says makes me feel smart.

The idea that I can understand what the duck lizard says makes me feel smart.

Make sure to check out the National Palace Museum in Taipei. It is literally the best collection of Chinese art in the world. The KMT took the Emperors' collection from the Forbidden City when the Commies drove them from the mainland..