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
If you think about how statistics works it’s extremely obvious why a model built on purely statistical patterns would “hallucinate”. Explanation in next tweet.
Very simply, statistics is about taking two points you know exist and drawing a line between them, basically completing patterns.
Sometimes that middle point is something that exists in the physical world, sometimes it’s something that could potentially exist, but doesn’t.
Imagine an algorithm that could predict what a couple’s kids might look like. How’s the algorithm supposed to know if one of those kids it predicted actually exists or not?
The child’s existence has no logical relationship to the genomics data the algorithm has available.
These grants aren't charity. They're highly competitive contracts where the US government determines Harvard is the best institution for conducting specific research, and then pays Harvard for services rendered to US taxpayers.
Each grant represents a fair contract that a group at Harvard won after being in competition with hundreds or even thousands of other groups. These are not handouts.
The US government pays Harvard and other universities to provide answers to questions that aren't directly profitable in themselves, but which provide a foundation for private sector innovation, and help maintain American dominance over geopolitical rivals like China.
As a someone who translates ideas into math for a living, I noticed something weird about the tariff formula that I haven't seen anybody else talk about. 🧵
The formula defines the tariff rate as exactly the percent you need to charge on imports to make up for the trade deficit. Basically,
trade deficit = tariff rate x imports
It's constructed as if tariffs are a kind of compensation for trade deficits but this raises a question.
If tariffs are something foreign countries owe to the American people for having a trade deficit, then forcing US businesses to make up for the difference, by paying extra money to the US government, is kind of a weird solution.
Whenever I see students with good grades but lots of college rejections, my first thought is a bad personal essay. As predicted, this guy's essay was kind of a disaster.
Since I did get into Harvard, I'll give my two cents on the essay:
In honor of international women's day, let's take a moment to remember the most famous statistician in history.
You've definitely heard of her, but you probably have no idea she was a statistician.
It's Florence Nightingale.
Nightingale was first female member of the Royal Statistical Society and a pioneer in using statistical analysis to guide medical decisions and public health policy.
Florence Nightingale's most famous statistical analysis was her investigation into the mortality rates of soldiers during the Crimean War. She demonstrated that the majority of deaths among soldiers were due to preventable diseases rather than battlefield injuries!
Took one for the team and made a histogram of the Elon social security data. Not sure why his data scientists are just giving him raw tables like that.
It’s also weird that they keep tweeting out these extremely strong claims without taking a few days to do some basic follow up work.
It doesn’t come off like they even:
- plotted the data
- talked to any of the data collectors
- considered any alternative explanations