Social Constructivism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an interesting counter intuitive point which will blow the minds of p-realists;

A crucial difference between scientific realists and constructionists is that
whereas the realists see nature and society as the causes that explain the outcomes of scientific enquiry,
for the constructionists the activity of scientists and engineers and of all their human and non-human allies is the cause, of which various states of nature and societies are the consequence.
(Callon & Latour 1992: 350–1).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rela ... #RelAboSci
Social Constructionism
Social constructionism is a particularly radical form of conceptual Relativism with implications for our understanding of the methodology and subject matter of the sciences.
According to social constructionism, Nature as studied by scientists does not come carved at its joints (to use Pato’s metaphor from Phaedrus: 265d–266a).

Reality—with its objects, entities, properties and categories—is not simply “out there” to be discovered only by empirical investigation or observation;
rather, it is constructed through a variety of norm-governed socially sanctioned cognitive activities such as interpretation, description, manipulation of data, etc.

Social constructionism has relativistic consequences insofar as it claims that different social forces lead to the construction of different “worlds” and that there is no neutral ground for adjudicating between them.

The “Science Studies” approach of Bruno Latour is a prime example of constructionism with relativistic consequences.
Latour and Woolgar (1986) have argued that so-called “scientific facts” and the “truths” of Science emerge out of social and conceptual practices and inevitably bear their imprints.
This is because the very idea of a mind-independent reality open to scientific study, or as they call it “out-there-ness”, itself is the consequence of scientific work rather than the cause.

A crucial difference between scientific realists and constructionists is that
whereas the realists see nature and society as the causes that explain the outcomes of scientific enquiry,
for the constructionists the activity of scientists and engineers and of all their human and non-human allies is the cause, of which various states of nature and societies are the consequence.
(Callon & Latour 1992: 350–1).

Scientific theories are also products of socially constituted practices.
They are contextually specific constructions which bear the mark of the situated contingency and interest structure of the process by which they are generated.
(Knorr-Cetina 1981: 226).

So called “scientific facts” and “natural kinds”, the primary subjects of scientific investigation are, at least in part, the products of the contingent social and epistemic norms that define the very subject matter of Science.

It may be argued that the view, if taken literally, entails a counter-intuitive form of backward causation to the effect that,
for instance,
the scientific facts about dinosaur anatomy 50 million years ago were caused in the 20th century when a scientific consensus about dinosaur anatomy was formed (see Boghossian 2006a).

But constructionism, at least in its most extreme form, accepts this consequence,
insisting that there are indeed no facts except for socially constructed ones, created and modified at particular times and places courtesy of prevailing theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

The above are not frivolous philosophical points but the fundamentals had been argued seriously amongst philosophers since philosophy first emerged.
Note Protagoras [420-490 BCE].


Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[phyllo]

That's how you get racist math and racist science.

[Iwannaplato]

The above are not frivolous philosophical points but the fundamentals had been argued seriously amongst philosophers since philosophy first emerged.
Note Protagoras [420-490 BCE].

So, you have quotes about contructivism and your contribution is the assertion that it is not frivlous.
OK, I agree constructivism is not frivolous. I mean, it might be in some people's hands, but in others it's not frivolous.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's how you get racist math and racist science.

Bruno Latour wrote a paper arguing that distant galaxies deserve political representation in Earthly parliaments. It was one of the worst things I ever read.

[Iwannaplato]

It may be argued that the view, if taken literally, entails a counter-intuitive form of backward causation to the effect that,
for instance,
the scientific facts about dinosaur anatomy 50 million years ago were caused in the 20th century when a scientific consensus about dinosaur anatomy was formed (see Boghossian 2006a).

But constructionism, at least in its most extreme form, accepts this consequence,
insisting that there are indeed no facts except for socially constructed ones, created and modified at particular times and places courtesy of prevailing theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

I think if we take this as face value it means there is little point in communicating. IOW he we have someone's contructed view of Constructivism. I can construct my own.

Constructivism is actually realism.

There, I constructed the correct description of Constructivism.

A constructivist could, of course, disagree but that certainly doesn't make his version true.

And an antirealist would say there is no constructivism, out there, that we can check against, to see which constructed description is correct.

[phyllo]

That's how you get racist math and racist science.

Bruno Latour wrote a paper arguing that distant galaxies deserve political representation in Earthly parliaments. It was one of the worst things I ever read.

There are lots of ideas being floated about giving natural resources rights. For example, rivers being treated as people with the same rights.

However, that's different from racist math and racist science ... the idea that the discoveries of math and science were constructed to favor some particular race.

[Skepdick]

I think if we take this as face value it means there is little point in communicating.

I can construct my own.

Constructivism is actually realism.

There, I constructed the correct description of Constructivism.

A constructivist could, of course, disagree but that certainly doesn't make his version true.

And an antirealist would say there is no constructivism, out there, that we can check against, to see which constructed description is correct.

Nonsense. Can't you comprehend context?

There is little point in communicating in the manner in which philosophers communicate. As demonstrated by the never-ending cycle of philosophy spanning millenia.
Still - we need philosophers in order to use them as a warning to the rest of mankind.

DON'T do it like that! That's the wrong way! That's not how adults interact!

The right way is to start with an agenda: What do you want? State your motives for this dialogue as precisely as possible. If there's no shared goal - there's no need to continue.

If you don't know what you want; or why you are engaging in the dialogue - go do some philosophy! Do it the wrong way until you grasp the right way.

[Peter Holmes]

It may be argued that the view, if taken literally, entails a counter-intuitive form of backward causation to the effect that,
for instance,
the scientific facts about dinosaur anatomy 50 million years ago were caused in the 20th century when a scientific consensus about dinosaur anatomy was formed (see Boghossian 2006a).

But constructionism, at least in its most extreme form, accepts this consequence,
insisting that there are indeed no facts except for socially constructed ones, created and modified at particular times and places courtesy of prevailing theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

I think if we take this as face value it means there is little point in communicating. IOW he we have someone's contructed view of Constructivism. I can construct my own.

Constructivism is actually realism.

There, I constructed the correct description of Constructivism.

A constructivist could, of course, disagree but that certainly doesn't make his version true.

And an antirealist would say there is no constructivism, out there, that we can check against, to see which constructed description is correct.

Yep. To make sense, a description of any kind of antirealism has to be realist, just as, to make sense, a description of any kind of non-classical logic has to be classical.

[Skepdick]

Yep. To make sense, a description of any kind of antirealism has to be realist, just as, to make sense, a description of any kind of non-classical logic has to be classical.

To make sense of an assertion of any kind one has to be an anti-realist.
Classical logic does not have an assignment operator, so how could language ever acquire any meaning?

This color is blue.



This is a cat

[phyllo]

Yep. To make sense, a description of any kind of antirealism has to be realist, just as, to make sense, a description of any kind of non-classical logic has to be classical.

How would that actually work?

For example, for 4-state logic ... True, False, Neither True nor False, Both True and False.

The last two states have no equivalent in 2-state logic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's how you get racist math and racist science.

Math and Science are the most credible and objective sources of knowledge and constructivists argued they are human-based and human-made not given by a God, etc.

Racism is also human-based and human-made but math and science are independent of racism.
Those who attribute racism with math and science are racists, perverts and stupid.

Math and Science are often linked with many other labels, such is religion [Christian, Islamic science etc.], politics [Nazi science], social, etc. and such linkages has no impact on the independence of math and science on their own.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's how you get racist math and racist science.

Bruno Latour wrote a paper arguing that distant galaxies deserve political representation in Earthly parliaments. It was one of the worst things I ever read.

I agree with Latour's view specific to what is stated in the above OP based on the principles of Constructivism.
Can you counter social Constructivism re science?

Latour may have written fiction elsewhere, that has nothing to do with the above in the OP.
Curious .. which paper?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It may be argued that the view, if taken literally, entails a counter-intuitive form of backward causation to the effect that,
for instance,
the scientific facts about dinosaur anatomy 50 million years ago were caused in the 20th century when a scientific consensus about dinosaur anatomy was formed (see Boghossian 2006a).

But constructionism, at least in its most extreme form, accepts this consequence,
insisting that there are indeed no facts except for socially constructed ones, created and modified at particular times and places courtesy of prevailing theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

I think if we take this as face value it means there is little point in communicating. IOW he we have someone's contructed view of Constructivism. I can construct my own.

Constructivism is actually realism.

There, I constructed the correct description of Constructivism.

A constructivist could, of course, disagree but that certainly doesn't make his version true.

And an antirealist would say there is no constructivism, out there, that we can check against, to see which constructed description is correct.

Yep. To make sense, a description of any kind of antirealism has to be realist, just as, to make sense, a description of any kind of non-classical logic has to be classical.

Ignorant as usual.

You should read this:

Logical pluralism is the view that there is more than one correct logic. Logics are theories of validity: they tell us which argument forms are valid.
Different logics disagree about which forms are valid.

For example, take ex falso quodlibet [from a false proposition, anything follows] (EFQ):
A,¬A⊨B,

• Stephen Kleene introduced two three-valued logics motivated by a logic in which truth values are thought of the outcomes of computational procedures: a procedure may yield T or F, but it may also fail to terminate. In that case the corresponding truth value is undefined, represented by the truth value U.

Classical and strong Kleene logics classify EFQ as valid, but relevant and paraconsistent logics say it is not.
It is quite tempting to think that they cannot all be right.
If EFQ is valid, then the relevant and paraconsistent logics are not correct theories of validity, or as we might put it: they are not correct logics.
And if EFQ is not valid, then classical and strong Kleene logic are not correct logics.
Logical pluralism takes many forms, but the most philosophically interesting and controversial versions hold that more than one logic can be correct, that is: logics L1 and L2 can disagree about which arguments are valid, and both can be getting things right.
What exactly it takes for a version of logical pluralism to be philosophically interesting is addressed more fully below, especially in §6.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-pluralism/