Science is a social construct.
Science is a way of knowing, employing a set of methods that are agreed and performed by people. Science does not exist outside of this framework, even with eloquent flourish.
Ergo, science is a social construct.
Science is a way of knowing, employing a set of methods that are agreed and performed by people. Science does not exist outside of this framework, even with eloquent flourish.
Ergo, science is a social construct.
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/1368259842222268421
The idea of social constructs has for some become synonymous with postmodern, or Frankfurt School bullshittery. I am unsure if RD is doing this here, but it’s unfortunate. Time, money, race are all social constructs, which are all important *because* they are socially constructed
Science is a way of knowing, and it is not possible to have a way of knowing without a human mind. Science only exists as a social construct.
I am no postmodernist btw, and have the greatest of respect for some of RD's work, which is peerless. bit.ly/2vFnI92
However, I think he's trivially and profoundly wrong on this. The language matters here. Trivially because science by definition is always changing, self -correcting and in pursuit of truth.
Nature, or natural truths, or objective reality exists outside of our perception of course, but that is no what science is - which is our organisation of knowledge of objective reality.
Anyway. enjoy your Sunday. It's important to think about these things, and the language that we use, cos it informs how we do science, which affects how we understand reality. Give me nuance or give me death!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
