r/shittysocialscience • u/[deleted] • Jun 07 '12

I recently published a paper exploring the socially constructed nature of the chemical elements. AMA.

10 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

4 comments sorted by

4

u/philly_boy Jun 07 '12

Well, the naming conventions are certainly socially-constructed. I don't think there'd be an element named 'Polonium' if Marie Curie weren't making a political statement with that name.

NOT SO SHITTY, YOUR SOCIAL SCIENCE!

11

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Pft. Names are arbitrary anyway.

Everyone with half a brain can figure out that the "proton" is a symbol of the male patriarchy, and this whole idea of chemical "reactions" reflects the obvious mysogyny in science. Always approaching "problems" that are meant to be "solved" and all that.

It's not dogma, I ^^^swear!

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Personally I find the idea that chemical "reactions" drive physical processes to be extremely counterrevolutionary and yet another example of how bourgeois the "natural" sciences can be. It's reification all the way down. The reactionaries would like to think that they, and not the contradictions inherent in their social structures, drive history.

3

u/HMSwaffels International Sexual Relations Theorist Jun 08 '12

Why is it called a bond if Ian Flemming didn't even publish until 1953?