Some folks think "Objective reality exists" is a good counterargument to "Science is socially constructed". It's not and here's why ...
The more I argue with folks about how "science is socially constructed", the more obvious it is to me that the people disagreeing with me are simply saying "Objective reality exists" (which I agree with but they seem to think I don't.)
Over and over again, they restate that reality is indeed real. Although this requires philosophical arguments to defend, they tend not to make any. Perhaps this is because messing with philosophy is how we get statements like "science is socially constructed" in the first place.
Often people resort to threats. What if you jump off a building? What if your boss fires you? What if your bridge collapses or your plane crashes? They seem to be saying "I'm very scared of this and I'm sure you are too! Why would we be so scared if reality didn't exist?"
This is not a good argument. What if I'm not easily scared? What if I'm overly anxious and inclined to irrational fears? Even if I agree that logically, one ought to fear falling out of an airplane, it doesn't prove anything other than we share subjective beliefs.
Of course, at the end of the day, I do think objective reality exists but my best guess as to the nature of that objective reality differs from yours. For instance, in my reality, science is socially constructed and if you're disagreeing with me then it's not in yours.
If you're not making use of philosophical arguments then your sense of objective reality is more of a strongly held intuition. Perhaps you once experienced a bridge collapse and you were very convinced by the experience. I've had similar experiences and so I share the intuition!
The question for me isn't whether objective reality exists. The question is how do we get at it given that our individual experience is subjective. My answer is in part by comparing our individual sense of reality and triangulating.
Social construction is thus an extremely important part of generating knowledge in science. We use triangulation between our differing perceptions and inferences to create a shared truth.
"Social" because the interaction with and understanding of the contents of the minds of others is critical to the process of knowledge creation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here is a problem I see with modern liberalism: if you tell a certain kind of liberal that there are two kids drowning and that they can only save one, they would immediately declare that they can save them both, and then act completely surprised when both drown shortly after.
If that same liberal could magically go back in time with all the knowledge of what had happened, that person would do the exact same thing again, and then be just as surprised when both kids drowned for the second time.
It's very hard to say we must sacrifice this one good thing for the sake of this other good thing and remain a liberal in good standing.
I honestly get a lot of value out of ChatGPT. It feels built for people like me. I find identifying and correcting its mistakes pretty easy because I'm used to grading student assignments, but I also do things that minimize mistakes like:
I input:
- examples of past solutions to similar problems
- a high-level sketch of the solution to the current problem
- background information if needed
- warnings about any potential complications or pitfalls
For instance, if I want ChatGPT to do a certain kind of computation, I might:
- do a sample calculation by hand on a piece of paper
- get ChatGPT to read the piece of paper and translate it to LaTeX
- tell ChatGPT to study the calculation and extend it to the new situation
This Musk meme speaks to something true which is America is splitting culturally between the college educated vs the non-college educated.
There is however a third group. People who went to college but who think and act like people who didn’t.
Basically you have these people who went to elite schools like Harvard or Stanford or Yale, who have law degrees and doctorates in many cases, telling the non-college educated that there’s no point to college because it’s not great job training.
I’m no historian but I don’t think an education was historically about job training. People apprenticed with tradesmen for that. Education was about being acculturated into the superstructure of your civilization. It taught you what humans had done so far and your place in it.
there is clearly a force or mechanism that causes the US electorate to balance at precisely 50% democrat 50% republican no matter what either candidate says or does.
if i was a social scientist, i would be absolutely obsessed with this.
my economics brain says maybe it's that each party is more extreme than the general electorate and is only willing to concede the minimum number of policies necessary to win which is exactly 50% + 1 vote.
this leads to a powerful finetuning mechanism on both sides.
my political science brain says that the fine tuning actually happens at the gerrymandering level. Same drive to stop at roughly 50% + 1 once you've gerrymandered enough seats.