[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 283 KB, 900x1200, bullshitisasocialconstruct.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10527999 No.10527999 [Reply] [Original]

How can anyone defend deconstructionism as anything other than selective sophistry?

>> No.10528042

>>10527999
viva la third sophistic!

>> No.10528065

because knowing history and not being a STEMfag you realize people's brains have prioritized wildly different categories and methodologies over time and that systems are often underpinned by ideologies and value judgments from outside culture

>> No.10528080

>>10528065

Okay, but what the fuck does that have to do with empirical evidence that can be reproduced in controlled conditions by anyone from any ideological or cultural background under properly controlled conditions?

>> No.10528096

>>10527999
On the face of it this image looks really dumb, but then you consider
>>10528065
And then you realize that a society that fetishises scientific facts as absolute truth isn't very scientific at all. Good science constantly questions itself and looks for hidden fallacies like whether or not "facts" we hold dear today were based on flawed premises informed by social thought at the time. Science ought to always hold the position of a philosophical sceptic like Hume

>> No.10528101

>>10528080
>thinking you can separate science from ideology
you're too deep into the trashcan, science in itself is nothing but a tool, its ideology that shapes what it's used for

>> No.10528115

>>10528096

No. Scientific facts are not an object of fetishism that derive their power from cultural fetishization. They derive their power from their ability to literally influence reality upon an empirical basis. The process of self-questioning leads to better and better theories over time, but calling scientific theory a "social construct" is intended to do nothing but facilitate a selective attack on the social implications of science by means of selective sophistry somewhat akin to the way that radical Christians can pull out a bible verse for anything.

>> No.10528130

>>10528096
Your insecure vitriol is stemming from the fact that I believe you believe that something being born of a social construct inherently makes it weak. Which it does not. There are good social constructs which bore bad ideas and bad ones which bear good and everything in between. I would hope that the images professor was making the point that this is only one lense to view things in and that an empiricist scientist uses not only a variety of lenses but the lenses most suitable to the task at hand.

>> No.10528139

>>10528130
Tagged the wrong guy meant
>>10528115

>> No.10528157

>>10528130
>>10528139

Defending from an attack against empiricism calls for a certain level of vitriol lest we make the mistake of framing this as a purely intellectual debate in the vein of quibbling over the oxford comma. To attack the product of the scientific method as a social construct is akin instead to attacking the arithmetic of 2+2=4. Allowing such a critique to stand unchallenged, or to merely challenge it dispassionately, is to allow the absurd to dress itself in academic credentials as it sets fire to the very universities that award it such distinction.

>> No.10528159

>>10528096
That's not what this type of thing usually means. It's people claiming that gravity is a white supremacist concept or that fluid dynamics are misogynistic.

>> No.10528166

>>10528065
He said, presupposing a stance outside of ideology from which to make this claim.

>> No.10528168

>>10528159
t. someone that gets his information about the sociology of science from /pol/

>> No.10528171

>>10528080
A test environment free from ideals, money constraints, flawed equipment and such would give excellent data - but it simply doesn't exist. Because this "frictionless vacuum" doesn't exist, empirical data can be twisted to suit people's agenda.

>> No.10528173

>>10528168
Have you never actually seen anything of that sort?

>> No.10528183

>>10527999
Checked


Deconstruction is a means of putting something in simple terms to make it easier to explain, usually to further one's understanding of the subject without over-complicating it.

The problem arises when you try to break down something incredibly intricate into something laughably generalized, essentially strawmanning.

I.e. "Lmao who even like agriculture it's just plants."

>> No.10528184

>>10528173
>usually means
>never seen
think hard, anon.

>> No.10528187

>>10528168
>>10528171
No, not in any sense of candor.

>> No.10528189 [DELETED] 

>>10528184
You're misreading what I said.

>> No.10528199

>>10528171

This is the poison of deconstructionism talking. The claim that because no wholly perfect, wholly ideal testing environment can be readily produced that the process of science cannot weed out claims based upon the agendas of its experimenters. I'm sorry, do you think that with the car, being a product of Henry Ford who was an antisemite, has tucked away in its cylinders some hatred of the jews like an ideological gremlin hidden in the thermodynamics of combustion? No, it fucking isn't.

Deconstructionism is a pit, an abyss akin to hell. Its temptation for the lazy, the prideful, and all such academic sinners conjures forth demons who seek to feed more and more of academia into its yawning maw.

>> No.10528208

Can someone provide an example of this type of language ("Scientific facts are social constructs") being used outside of some SJW context? I think that might clear up the issue in some ways.

>> No.10528209

>this thread
Gas it

>> No.10528219

>>10528171
Like climate change

>> No.10528245

>>10528208
Sure. Scientific facts are social constructs insofar as they are the product of a society purposefully built from the time of the Renaissance to value empirical thought over other forms like superstition. Without the processes proposed by thinkers like Bacon there would be no such things as scientific facts they are the "construct" built by a group of ideas from multiple people over time. This does not invalidate them but rather proves the beauty of the society that made this line of inquiry possible.

>> No.10528256
File: 44 KB, 446x362, 1515784492517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10528256

>>10527999
>>10527999
>finds out of context picture of just a title page to a ppt, with females taking notes in front of it just to complete the subtle inclusion of the poster's existing childish gripes towards the present education system
>uses it as an "accurate" representation of a more complicated process
>constructs question in a way that simultaneously generalizes the previously mentioned subject while additionally demeaning anyone on a personal basis who may feel neutral or positive about it otherwise
>remaining on a detached enough ground to avoid actually taking a stance incase someone tries to reason or argue with you

t. /lit/

>> No.10528257
File: 26 KB, 467x206, THEORY-DEFINED.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10528257

>>10528208
All facts are theories.

Theories are shared ideas, which exist as a social construct.

>> No.10528266

>>10528245
>>10528257
No I want to see an actual published source that uses that manner of language.

>> No.10528270

>>10528199
The issue is that it can and does happen in the first place. Over time, we as a people, discover truths. However, that process takes time. For ages, people KNEW there was a god. People KNEW, through testing and science, that certain ailments were caused by bad humor.
An imperfect test environment is still useful. An imperfect test environment can, and does, yield useful data. It can (not will, CAN) also yield incorrect data. A human CAN twist facts to suit his purpose. A corporation CAN threaten to stop funding a project if it makes them look bad.

>> No.10528293

>>10528266
Look up a social constructionism abstract then

>> No.10528307
File: 16 KB, 1152x648, rusedagin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10528307

>>10528256
the BIG ruse

>> No.10528311

>>10528266
Google it yourself I ain't your fuccboi

>> No.10528320

Whenever I see threads like these I find myself wondering how our STEM friends think science is made. Do you think you just inject a bunch of axioms in a machine and it gives you a fact? Do you not realize that every information is filtered (emphasis on filtered btw) and exposed by human beings who can read that information in a number of ways?
We're in a literature board, the problem of interpretation shouldn't be new to anyone. Just consider how tobacco companies still haven't found any real link between smoking and lung cancer while (supposedly) spending quite a bit of money in research.

>> No.10528830

>>10528320

>how our STEM friends think science is made

Through deductive reasoning made on the basis of the best inductive cases that can be constructed, all of which is subject to the rigors of the scientific method.

The best place for deconstructionist examination is in the buildup to those inductive cases of reasoning, but to inject it into the scientific process once those inductive cases are being used to build deductive hypothesis that have since become theory is a gross sin against process.

>> No.10528857
File: 96 KB, 736x879, 0ff2cc06e5142579bb498f1812b812b2--the-angel-rembrant-paintings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10528857

Can we just can condemn deconstructionism because of it's harmful effects on modern neo-liberal Western society?

No need to argue about it's merits as intentions are as good as irrelevant without a future.

>> No.10528870

>>10528857

I'm inclined more to sideline deconstructionism because effectually it represents the sidelining of empiricism as much as reactionary sentiment does. Empiricism is as capable of fighting off bad faith arguments within it's own schema as deconstructionism is, but it has the added bonus of neither throwing the baby of science out with the bath water nor being party to the infinite fallacies that a condemnation of empiricism leads to.

>> No.10528883

>>10528080
>empirical evidence
doesnt exist
>reproduced
Doesn't give it any veracity.
>>10528115
>self-questioning
Nice ideology. You are about as skeptical as a rock.
>>10528208
Philosophy of science. I understand that you're an uneducated little STEMsperg in high school, but some of us aren't.

>> No.10528888

>>10528870
Fuck off back to plebbit, STEMsperg

>> No.10528899

>>10528883

>something being independently reproducible doesn't give it veracity

Kindly fuck off.

>> No.10528915
File: 734 KB, 889x500, picture of chadom.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10528915

>>10528888
quads of truth

>> No.10528918

>>10528857
http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/1-grammar-error/

>> No.10528939

>>10528870
Opaque writing autists need to off themselves

>> No.10528960

>>10528870
I agree, there isn't much of a choice, but am not keen on empiricism because it often destroys the transcendant aspects of god, love, beauty or will.
ie feels>reals

>> No.10528965

>>10528960

All things kept in their proper scope. Empiricism only needs to assert itself in times when it's under threat by reactionary sentiment or something like deconstructionism. Otherwise the machine can just keep chugging in the background.

>> No.10528987
File: 201 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (17).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10528987

>>10527999
yes, their selectivity is too transparent at this point to take their position seriously, for some reason they weaseled out of this for too long

>> No.10528992

>>10528096
No, fuck no. No amount of logic or reasoning will make that sentence in the OP true. Scientific fact is not a social construct; this is obvious. What isn't obvious is why people are so willing to defend nonsense in our society.

>> No.10529005
File: 15 KB, 228x221, 1426619449304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10529005

>>10528199
>do you think that with the car, being a product of Henry Ford who was an antisemite, has tucked away in its cylinders some hatred of the jews like an ideological gremlin hidden in the thermodynamics of combustion?

>> No.10529008
File: 64 KB, 735x331, C6fRdpqWgAE8C1h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10529008

>>10528208
there's a twitter account that's responsible for checking that kind of thing
https://twitter.com/realpeerreview

>> No.10529013

>>10528883
>scientific fact: gravity exists.
NU UH ITS A CONSTRUCT MUH IDEOLOGY.

>> No.10529015

>>10529008
Lol.

>> No.10529018
File: 32 KB, 747x204, DQ9WrKKWkAE1HwC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10529018

>>10528266

>> No.10529035

>>10529005

Right? It's absurd.

>> No.10529037
File: 70 KB, 696x360, DTW264AX4AA2oz2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10529037

>> No.10529048
File: 54 KB, 546x277, DTTLBeNW4AUdYRu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10529048

>> No.10529058
File: 75 KB, 672x398, DTTHKl1XcAIJVkF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10529058

>> No.10529072
File: 62 KB, 614x284, DTTH5LNWkAALFao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10529072

>> No.10529336

>>10528899
Why would it?

>> No.10529344

>>10529013
>he doesn't understand nominalism
Every day I continue to be stunned by how uneducated this board really is.

>> No.10529363

>>10528857
Imagine trying this same thing with say capitalism, or liberalism... the absolute shitstorm that would ensue. Arguing dosen't work that way anon. If you can't argue against something successfully, then just shitpost about it.

>> No.10529372

>>10527999
If scientific facts are social construcs how come their product like CRISPR can wipeout ppl based on dna or hydrogen bombs can delete cities

>> No.10529376

>>10527999
Ask them if Marxism is a social construct and thus worthy of criticism

>> No.10529416

>>10529372
The same way that the Belgian government artificially divided Rwanda into three pseudo-ethnicities based on who brown-nosed them the most, which lead to a genocide based on other social constructs such as assuming a government leader of an artificial ethnicity is acting according to the entirety, or that said government is planning a genocide.

>> No.10529433

>>10529416
But thats the argument that some science isn't really science or truth at all, but bullshit dressed up to look like its objectively true; in literature terms, it would be a poem that has all the structure of a classical piece, but doesn't actually contain any information—repeatedly writing nigger into a trochaic sonnet does not make it a sonnet anymore than throwing scientists on a board and having them "determine" shit and call it science. Now, if the argument was that some science isn't really science or true at all, then this premise would be more sensible, instead of this blanket, deconstructionist term that obfuscates its intended truth.

>> No.10529463

>>10529433
Holy shit you are so fucking stupid.
I hope you realize that, assuming 'truth' exists (it doesn't), falsities still can convince and apply. That doesn't mean the theory behind is 'true'. A consequence can occur from a false action or theory.
Assuming 'hurr i can do it again!' is a verification is incredibly sloppy.
Like, come on. The penicillin Jew didn't intent to make penicillin. Why do you think that applies more broadly? This is one of the major problems in science: it is teleological and therefore assuming a certain model of time and space are true, and that they are Platonist models.

>> No.10529524

>>10529463
If truth doesnt exist im sure that lead thru your brain wont kill you.

Wanna try? No? Eh, why?????

>> No.10529529

>>10529524
nice dude you got him niiiiiiiiiiiiice

>> No.10529579

>>10529529
U so salty. Looks like you didbt test the truth.

>> No.10529606

>>10528857
Deconstructionism is a useful thought process to go through, even if you still fundamentally believe in the value of science.

>> No.10529608

>>10528101
You're an actual retarded person aren't you?

>> No.10529646
File: 9 KB, 639x469, 1512349131956.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10529646

>>10527999

I suppose it really depends what 'facts' they are talking about, but the statement its self really bugs me.

Some things are absolutely proven to be true, such as certain physical constants. There may be room to improve our measurements for accuracy infinitely converging on 100% but to say that "Scientific Facts are Social Constructs" strikes me as some really blatant SJW bullshit. It's a blanket statement that has no room for cases, or discussion. The next slide is probably "So we can see, as scientific facts are simply social constructs, gender is also a social construct because nothing biology teaches us is really true".

This picture was probably taken in a worthless class as a part of a worthless women's studies / gender studies degree.

>> No.10529890

>>10528992
>No amount of logic or reasoning will make true
And that's ideology everyone. Nothing

>> No.10531075

>>10529606
>useful
sounds spooky

>> No.10531087

>>10527999
OP
>>10528065

I believe this will generally be the defense youll get. Just remember that faults in justification for science, logic, maths, etc, does not justify whatever it is they wish to argue for.

They will simply rely on the fact that you will freak out that you cant give certainty. They bank on this. Certainty is a problem and one worth grappling with. An inability to give it does not justify deconstruction in the slightest.

>> No.10531089

>>10528320
>Do you think you just inject a bunch of axioms in a machine and it gives you a fact? Do you not realize that every information is filtered (emphasis on filtered btw) and exposed by human beings who can read that information in a number of ways?
That's statistics 101, retard. Stop playing the part of le learned intellectual.

>> No.10531104 [DELETED] 

>>10529336
Because whatever bias that is relevant to tricking us into believing a falsehood would shown.

If I fudge my numbers to show that contrails leave sprinkle meth in the atmosphere and thus is evidence for meth "chemtrails", other people should be able to replicate what Ive found if what was observed is repeatable. Once others have done this enough theyll find that this isnt the case, and move on, leaving my lie and the bias that formed it in the past

>> No.10531107

>>10529336
Because whatever bias that is relevant to tricking us into believing a falsehood would be shown.

If I fudge my numbers to show that contrails sprinkle meth in the atmosphere and thus is evidence for meth "chemtrails", other people should be able to replicate what Ive found if what was observed is repeatable. Once others have done this theyll find that this isnt the case, and move on, leaving my lie and the bias that formed it in the past

>> No.10531117

>>10528199
>, do you think that with the car, being a product of Henry Ford who was an antisemite, has tucked away in its cylinders some hatred of the jews like an ideological gremlin hidden in the thermodynamics of combustion? No, it fucking isn't.
lol

>> No.10531132
File: 564 KB, 1788x1171, pale-king.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10531132

>>10528199
>I'm sorry, do you think that with the car, being a product of Henry Ford who was an antisemite, has tucked away in its cylinders some hatred of the jews like an ideological gremlin hidden in the thermodynamics of combustion?

I just want you to know that you are the good that is left of this board

>> No.10531226

>>10528171
>the absolute state of /lit/

>> No.10531244

Now I remember why I stopped visiting this board

>> No.10531258

>>10527999
teaching scientific facts are social construct is a social construct.

>> No.10531260

The Left: We're the side of science, you stupid conservatives!
Also the Left: Scientific facts are social constructs, you stupid conservatives!

>> No.10531271

>>10531260
Those aren't mutually exclusive positions.

>> No.10531280

>>10528270
Funny how nobody decided to reply to your post and instead greentexted his ebin le antisemite goblin joke.

>> No.10531299

>>10531271
How so? Seems pretty hypocritical to me to consider yourselves the champion of something while also claiming that something is bad.

>> No.10531302

>>10528270
>People KNEW, through testing and science, that certain ailments were caused by bad humor.
The scientific method has never been used to support the medical view of humours, it's medieval and doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. In any case, science doesn't prove anything with absolute certainty and scientists are well aware of this. Totally perfect lab conditions obviously don't exist, and scientific findings involve hypothesis because you can't control for absolutely everything, which is why scientific findings are written with caveats and reasonable doubts about the experiment.

>> No.10531350

>>10531107
What if they all have the same bias? To give a particular spicy example: Every climate scientist wants to keep his job and make it seem like it is of crucial importance for the survival of the species, so in a way they are all biased to keep showing the destructive effects of climate change. Every field of research wants itself to be seen as important and relevant.
Even beyond that, scientists in most fields today tend to overwhelmingly be male, atheist, left-leaning, white or asian, etc. There is a specific kind of person with a specific world view that tends to gravitate towards specific fields of science and that in a way means that biased reports can very easily be reproduced.

>> No.10531359

>>10527999
Reminder that anyone who unironically uses the word "deconstructionism" is a pseud who's never even read Derrida and talking to them is a waste of time

>> No.10531368

>>10531350
Racial diversity doesn't guarantee diversity of thought. Black scientists don't want to do "black science", they want to do science.

>> No.10531387

>>10531299
There's nothing inherently bad about being a social construct.

>> No.10531388

>>10531368
Neither do white scientists appropriating indigenous medicine want to do indigenous science either.
How much of a fucking autist do you have to be to not realize science doesn't exist in a vaccuum, cunt.

>> No.10531395

>>10531388
Is that really the level you want to talk at?

>> No.10531399

>>10531368
>science is beyond the reach of socio-political institutions
this is my favorite meme, I'm sure those pharma industries do not turn their patients into drug consumers instead of providing actual cures because its profitable on the long run

>> No.10531402

>>10531399
>black scientists can carry out science on the same level as white scientists
>that's wrong because bad practice exists in the pharmaceutical industry
Huh?

>> No.10531405

>>10531387
Except leftshits claim social constructs are bad. But scientific fact isn't a social construct anyways.

>> No.10531408

>>10531402
sorry meant to quote>>10531107

>> No.10531428

>>10531405
Pointing out that something is a social construct isn’t necessarily saying it’s bad - but maybe that we should think critically about it, like gender. If it’s not useful the way it is now, we can suggest ways of changing it to suit our human needs.

>> No.10531432
File: 85 KB, 711x800, 1419519897245.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10531432

>>10531428

>> No.10531434

>>10531299
I’m a STEM major and I find acknowledging that the scientific method is a construct, inherently has flaws, isn’t the only way, and doesn’t work for some situations, helps me make more informed decisions about how to approach a problem or read a study. Being critical of my field’s methodology has also helped me see when there’s a problem with a given study’s methodology as well.

>> No.10531442

>>10527999
"Scientific facts" is an oxymoron. The scientific method is Popperian Hypothetico Deductivism.

That basically means:
>make up any bullshit you want (Hypothesis) as long as it's falsifiable (has practical means to be proven false)
>try your very hardest to prove it false
>get your friends to try too
>the best you can ever do is say "I can't falsify it... for now"

There are no "facts" in science. Foundation of the statement is flawed. Rejected for community college Tumblr-tier bullshit by Armani Anarchist teenager who wants to be the next Rosa Parks.

>> No.10531452

>>10531428
I'm onto your jewish tricks...

>> No.10531561

This is the worst thread, everyone who has posted in here should kys

>> No.10531567

>>10531561
*teleports behind you*
Nothing personal, kid.

>> No.10531684

>>10531104
Wrong, retard.

>> No.10531695

>>10531561
ITT: People too lazy to read a single essay by Derrida, a short primer on deconstruction (or structuralism), or any old wikipedia article on the history of philosophy.

It's like the spectrum of /lit/ is people who who know buzzwords, and people who know so deeply about the actual concepts associated with and around those buzzwords that they're too jaded to actually explain them in non-autistic ways.

>> No.10531766 [DELETED] 
File: 123 KB, 537x536, 1488044311397.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10531766

>>10528199
Honest to God, you should absolutely end your life if the thought should cross your mind to do so.

>> No.10531770
File: 123 KB, 537x536, 1488044311397.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10531770

>>10528171
Honest to God, you should absolutely end your life if the thought should cross your mind to do so.

>> No.10532032

>>10531442
>The scientific method is Popperian

It really isn't.

>> No.10532054

>>10529646
yes but science is racist thus physical constants are social constructs

>> No.10532075

Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.

>> No.10532098

>>10532075

If you accept that "scientific facts" are social constructs and some crazy aboriginal culture states that crabs diddle kids, then that's what such a schema leads to.

>> No.10532145

A scientific fact is a sociolinguistic necessity. The scientific method and its products don't reveal, but describe what is already the case. The earth revolved around the sun before we knew the earth revolved around the sun. The copernican revolution did not change anything outside a social understanding of the world. The heavenly bodies move without our understanding what variables make stars shift and planets appear to corkscrew. But as far as I can tell, and maybe for an evolutionary purpose, "why" is supremely important to us, we crave understanding. The coppernican revolution was big because of the social ramifications from a shakeup in established social understanding. Science itself is just a method (which only truly became formalized into the "scientific method" very recently) which we've found satisfies that innate need even if understanding is something arbitrary.
inb4 "muh technology," the steam engine was invented with no acute scientific understanding of how it actually functions.

>> No.10532168

Something being a social construct does not preclude it from power. It is not a trivializing observation, social constructs are some of the most powerful forces at work within us. Money and value is a social construct and just look at that. I don't know why you /pol/fags chimp out at "social construct."

>> No.10532228

>>10532168

Because a social construct can be amended, trivialized, or ignored in a way that a scientific theory cannot using mechanisms inapplicable to how science works. I'm not a /pol/fag, but it's as plainly obvious that designating something as a social construct is step one of trivializing it, and as a supporter of science I refuse to go down that road.

>> No.10532280

>>10532228
That's the hope but no, it can't be amended. I refer back to the money example, and how despite the change to digital/plastic currency over paper nothing has changed, it is still that which it is.

>> No.10532295

>>10532280

I think you're falsely equivocating the social contrivance that allows the concept of currency to work with scientific theory. We can all agree to switch from paper money to plastic cards, but we can't all suddenly agree to drop the boiling point of water and have it actually happen.

>> No.10532338

>>10532295
No but we can all agree to perceive that boiling point i.e. Fahrenheit to Celsius. Cash to card is the same thing two different descriptions of the desire of humans to trade and do business.

>> No.10532343

>>10532295
We can discover that all of our previous methods of measuring temperature have been inaccurate, or all change to metric.

Even what we consider to be this change of state of water isn't static no matter how well it's defined, there will always be so many other variables involved that were human constructs that sociology can be a catch all for anything, even the most well evidenced theories are just shared ideas.

>> No.10532359

>>10532338

Again, you're conflating contrivances (origin points and measuring systems) with scientific theory. Just because we might agree to measure in Celsius, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin doesn't change the boiling point of water, just where we measure it from our contrived system's respective origin.

You're making my point for me very clearly. What you are asserting is that the change of a contrivance, which is a social construct, is equivalent to changing "scientific fact". That's exactly the pitfall that is inherent in deconstructionism. You think that shifting around some contrivances is equivalent to changing the immutable.

>>10532343

>have been inaccurate

Yes, but we would discover that through empirical methodology, not deconstructionism.

>all change to metric

See my above statement.

>Even what we consider to be this change of state of water isn't static no matter how well it's defined, there will always be so many other variables involved that were human constructs that sociology can be a catch all for anything, even the most well evidenced theories are just shared ideas.

You're leaping willfully off of an epistemological cliff here.

>> No.10532455

>>10527999
> thinks deconstruction is a philosophy instead of a method

>> No.10532457

>>10532455

Selective sophistry is a method.

>> No.10532487

>>10532359
You're not following dude. Man's measurements of nature are themselves contrived. Contrived very well, mind you, and through a philosophically sound method that was born of minds working within a particular society.

>> No.10532493

>>10532487

You're not following, dude. Man's system of measurements might be contrived, but the underlying realities remains the same which is why you can convert between Kelvin, Celsius, and Fahrenheit. This is precisely the danger that I'm talking about.

>> No.10532515

>>10532457
But deconstruction isn’t a philosophy, hence ”deconstructionism” doesn’t really mean anything

>> No.10532516

>>10532493
But those realities exist regardless of humans thoughts on the matter. What we call a scientific fact is only our best observation on a natural thing at a given time. It is not in and of itself the reality.

>> No.10533256

>all these brainlets ITT
i'm gonna go post on sherdog now

>> No.10534691

>>10532145
>describe
Wrong.

>> No.10534726

>>10532228
You refuse because you've been spooked
>>10532295
Wrong. The boiling point of water is now 5 dicks. I used my botnet to make billions of people vote that the new standard universal liberal empire definition for the boiling point of water is now 5 dicks. At the same time, I used my botnet to create a brainwashing drug which has been entered into every major water source in the world, and have used my botnet to advertise for a year that the new boiling point of water is 5 dicks.
The boiling point of water is now defined as 5 dicks, everybody including all the scientists and shit agree and will LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOU if you disagree. Sorry, savage shitskin, I guess you don't get science and logic and are just a FEELSIE WEELSIE because you don't want approximately 5 dicks in your chai.

>> No.10534761

>>10527999
>not knowing that deconstruction is only the establishing of a family tree of ways in which a concept has been used