How do you refute this in a respectable manner?

how do you refute this in a respectable manner?

Other urls found in this thread:

home.ku.edu.tr/~mbaker/CSHS503/LatourLabLif.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

you know I think every single person in my engineering course would laugh like shit if we ever had to suffer through something like this

"no, science is a racial construct, made by white peoplle"#

>Scientific facts are social constructs
>Therefore social constructs are scientific facts
>Race is a social construct
>Therefore race is a scientific fact
Has the left finally /BTFO/ themselves?

I suppose if your particular society does not value facts, it makes sense.

>facts are racists
waht

Start by defining the terms properly. "Social construct" can mean anything, even your own thoughts. That sentence is just the opinion of whoever wrote it and his opinion is a "social construct".

>Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality.

You can mention that the scientific method tries to be as objective as possible in order to explain reality as best as we can and that outside of philosophy class it's pointless to call scientific facts social constructs since there is no better understanding of reality available to humans than those provided by science.

Basically it's the same pointless crap as calling yourself an agnostic unironically

Have social constructs gone too far?

this annoys me greatly

washing your hair is a social construct

this is some "are traps gay" logic

Why are social constructs bad again?

You failed Logic 101 didn't you?

Pick up a book and drop it to the ground.

Gravity is a scientific fact of the laws of physics.

so you're saying it checks out then?

Chuckle audibly then leave.

Because they helped make western society, which college professors must destroy at all costs

Scott Adams has been talking about this since 2015.

Facts don't matter. Humans imagine their own reality or distort it instead of change their views, especially when their closest beliefs are threatened.

Scientific facts are in fact Social Constructs. That's is a valid statement. Whatever comes after that slide is what has me worried.

It's not wrong, and thus there is no need to refute it. The statement itself is a bit misleading; there is no such thing as a scientific fact, as empiricism can never deal with absolute truth.

Imagine spending 8k - 12k a year to be taught this.

I challenge the professor to go to the top of the building and prove that the law of gravity is a social construct.

By doing what that user said; Laugh at them OP.

It's a theory, but since their is so much overwhelming evidence RIGHT NOW it can be called a fact.

You don't. Keeps these people stupid and abuse their stupidity for your own goals.

This thank you.

Death is a social construct *pops da glock*

Trying to refute it lends it too much dignity. You should respond to it the same you would respond to a severely mentally disabled child scribbling something about potato on the wall. After all, that's basically what it is.

What famous person/s believes this, ask for names. Ask their credentials.

I do to some extent agree hat science hasn't got all the facts by a long shot. But, this is just some don't be mad at black people gobbledegook.

I walk the fuck out and get a refund

>you've entered into... the chromo-sone

you don't
do not give literally retarded people the time of day

...

'is' is a reflexive and transitive relation so I don't see why this would be logically incorrect

Look up foucoult.

Feminist philosophers are batshit crazy

They are using social construct as broadly as possible. Technically everything/anything is a social construct we agree it exists.

Must be a shit class if they are using umbrella terminology to justify their case.

Ask them if gravity is a social construct and if so then ask them to jump off a building

kek this

...

I don't think the statement with "are" is a bi-conditional. which you seem to have stated there

You win. I'm not willing to subject a comment in which I was clearly memeing to this level of formality.

you respond with

>"but all social constructs are just merely psychologically constructs of ours minds, nothing is real MAN" then snort and stomp around then squat and take a huge dump, pick it up, throw it at the professor and shout "SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!! SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!! SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!!!"

"Social" implies the presence of two or more individuals.
"Personnal" would be its exact opposite.
Science as a whole is a social construct. It doesn't discredit anything, thought. In fact, people have corroborated data as to make it more credible and truthful.

I have never understood how that's a bad thing
>Race is a social construct
Yes, it is, but it is a recognized construct that as prevented racial tensions for more than ten thousand years now, go ask Neanderthal.

I think most of psychology as a field, and scientific facts related to it is a social constrict

And after looking again, there is a lot wrong with this. But you were just playing around, however id like to realistically answer op

But they’re true no matter what the “social construct” is. If humans went extinct gravity wouldn’t just stop working. Wtf is a social construct anyway?

Bruno LaTour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts

Read it. It's surprisingly persuasive, at least with respect to the class of scientific "facts" that are developed in contemporary laboratories.
>home.ku.edu.tr/~mbaker/CSHS503/LatourLabLif.pdf

Logic is a social construct

>Wtf is a social construct anyway?
literally anything.

You see a can on the ground and i say"watch out for that can on the ground." Boom the ground and the can are a social construct.

That is one of the only thing not a social construct, you know.
As abstract consciousness is one of the only self-evident truth to the personal mind possible.

Then again, logic is probably a social construct too.

Need context. Literally speaking, it's a joke, but what was the overall message? 'Scientism' is a real concept, and in that context, I could see this being a plausible statement.

If you even start to address or think about this, they've beaten you

that bothers me. For example, I have a coffee cup and a pen on the table. To deny logic implies that I can have an inconsistency like: it is not the case that I have a coffee cup and a pen on the table. But I do, so ID

that's the black magic of twisting word definitions slightly to alter reality

>scientific facts are social constructs

So is racism.

It's true, a scientific fact is just what the most people have come together and verified and agreed is the correct answer to a question. It is therefore a "social construct."

However, the fact that it's a social construct doesn't make it less valid, though, which IS what the postmodernist professor is surely proffering/implying. Rather it shows how superfluous a label "social construct" is in judging the validity of something.

ding ding ding

yea but logic is a natural law as far as I can tell. To try and disarm it this way is just... illogical

Are you a canophobe?

There was a social need for the scientific research and therefore results. So this makes sense. I'm sorry you're unable to grasp the simplicity in your intro to soc course. Unless you're actively over thinking this to assume that we are saying that scientific facts are false.

honestly just start laughing your ass off in class; crazy ass shit like this deserves no respect and shouldn't need to be refuted.

top kek; just troll them back with some shit like this

How do you refute full blown insanity? You just insult it.

>this picture is taken in an educational institution

Need philosophy 101

no. i fuck cans all the time even call them Jars is they prefer.

Not what is being said.

Progressive

So is wiping anus

you dont, you kill these people. Literally no exceptions, it's no longer about "education" or "free press"

Well.. If you consider dialethism or reject the axiom of choice, there is some debate to be had about the irrefutable nature of logic.

Ask for their epistemology, wait for them to look it up, and just not in a sage sort of way.

"Failing" is a socially constructed idea

More than that dude.

The theory of gravity isn't a theory. It's an irrefutable scientific law. It's a pure scientific fact that cannot be denied. Therefor every scientific fact is just that, a fact, and to say that scientific facts are "social constructs" is anti-scientific behavior worthy of the dark ages.

Why do you feel the need to refute something that's wrong by very basic definition?

>implying traps aren't gay
Son, I've got news for you.

Unsupported assumption of symmetry. Not auto-BTFO.

This didn't say scientific facts are false.

Everyone's inability to understand social constructs here is actually making them look stupid through poor comprehension. Generally scientific research has a societal impact or a reason for going forth. When we find results it helps or impacts society in one way or another. When we as a society or individual look for scientific answers to wordly problems it is a social endeavor simultaneously.

Drop out and go apprentice at an HVAC shop while going to school to get an electricians license.

Logic is a Euro-centric and cisnormative social construct primarily used in the oppression of minorities and POC

It’s a fact. However you can go full empiricist and claim that everything is a social construct.

just get up and walk out. this sort of person cannot be reasoned with

By adopting a positivist position?

You all have to understand that contrasting ontological and epistemological positions can never agree with each other because of their vastly different theoretical make-ups. As such, all you have to do when faced with an interpretivist or a constructivist is to say, "I'm a positivist, therefore what you just said cannot make sense within my line of thinking".

That's literally all you have to do.

Something being a social construct is in itself a social construct.

It’s true though.

Scientific facts are - first and foremost - fictive entities, and that's it.

" R is an uncountably infinite set" would be the example of a scientific fact which is not a social construct. R will always be uncountably infinite, regardless of how many humans/individuals know about it. Even if all of humanity died (eliminating every possibility of social influence), that fact (just as the fictive concepts behind it) wouldn't suddenly stop existing - it's just that there exists no individual with explicit knowledge of it. Of course humans can [find out] about facts during social interactions (which is what large parts of science are based on), but the social component of the "act of finding a fact" does not magically transfer onto the fact itself.

Of course you have to be careful about the usage of language here. Even the statements describing apparent scientific "facts" might actually not describe the truth. In Physics for example we [always] work on abstract models designed to emulate reality in a often limited (but accurate enough to use, depending on the context) way. We work with the model, and always hope that it describes reality well enough. Of course it would be way to cumbersome to differentiate between real live entities and their abstract representatives in our model worlds, so even if a statement of ours is factual only for an abstract representative, we speak as if factual for it's real-life pendant instead.

>dialethism
interesting, heres and example
>Professor Greene is lecturing. Down the hall, her arch-rival, Professor Browne, is also lecturing. Professor Greene is holding forth at length about how absurd Professor Browne’s ideas are. She believes Professor Browne to be lecturing in Room 33. So to emphasize her point, she writes on the blackboard the single sentence:

Everything written on the board in Room 33 is false.

But Professor Greene has made a mistake. She, herself, is in Room 33. So is what she has written on the board true or false? If it’s true, then since it itself is written on the board, it’s false. If it’s false, then since it is the only thing written on the board, it’s true. Either way, it’s both true and false.

I can't take this seriously. ITs not true by virtue of it just being written.. it has to refer to.a true referent. it does not.

social constructs are biological constructs

/thread

This is actually a good way to illustrate motivations or rationalizations of a multitude of other analysis. If you can determine the social reasons motivating science you can understand various reasons for other disciplines/philosophies.


Or you could just learn from Asian message boards from Russian bots

This is basically how shoaism works, the kikes and their enablers don't give a fuck about physics because "it was all real in my mind oy vey"

Was it annoying to sit behind the honey monster?

>all those (yous)
fucking namefags, i swear to god

also just because it is the only thing written on the board itself does not make it true.

maybe there are better examples?

Best thing to do is to cahnge the school/uni or whatever

Yea this is why I'm saying this is a pointless argument to have in the first place. Social constructs done through the scientific method have higher validity than personal constructs because they rely on data that is subject to several personal interpretations until a "social" one is agreed upon. Arguing that we can never truly grasp reality because we interpret reality through the lense of subjective abstractions is a futile and pointless exercise just like saying you're an agnostic. I can be an agnostic about anything. Maybe the most pointless statement ever uttered by a human being is "I'm agnostic in regards to social constructs"

Ask 'is social construct a scientific fact?'

i could hear the sneer from here

This can't be real. Where?