When “objective truth” is contrasted with “socially constructed truth,” the contrast is NOT between the existence of truth as such and multiple-“truths,” experiential “truths,” or private/subjective “truths,” but between truths that are discoverable in the world as 1/
2/ (more or less) independent of social formation, social habitualization, and social institutionalization; that is, truth that is not contingent on a network of historically constructed social meanings. This is why mathematics and science are often considered to deal in
3/ "objective truth" whereas social sciences largely deal in socially constructed truths, viz., truths dependent upon networks of social meanings.
Further, in CRT, this debate is almost ALWAYS in the context of determining truth legal storytelling. It's extremely important to
Further, in CRT, this debate is almost ALWAYS in the context of determining truth legal storytelling. It's extremely important to
4/ study the discussion in its actual context.
It is kind of like when we say race is not "objective" but "socially constructed," though nevertheless very real and the subject of many truth claims.
It is kind of like when we say race is not "objective" but "socially constructed," though nevertheless very real and the subject of many truth claims.
5/ Further, in most academic critiques of this notion (not internet apologists), scholars agree broadly with the social construction thesis, but deny that racial, ethnic, gender, etc., identity are epistemically relevant in evaluating socially constructed truth claims.
6/6 I think I might write a short piece on this soon, since it keeps coming up from folks who want to attack rather than understand.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
