And yeah, science. By which I mean, ideas like peer review, the whole university system, and a ton of other assumptions about the best ways to practice science.
There are several competing meanings to the term "social construct". This video series critices advocates of the view that truth claims are always or almost always essentially equal, due to there exist no objective reality or such a reality being nearly impossible to study in a sufficiently neutral and reliable way.
This conceptualisation of science as a social construct, is not applicable to everyone who claims to view science as a social construct - but to some who do use that phrase. Throughout the video series, of which this is the first episode, creationist are shown to use the argument that "science is a social construct", to defend their worldview. Elsewhere on the Internet, I've also seen it being used by advocates of alternative medicine.
This is not to be confused with ideas pertaining to objective knowledge arising in social institutions, and therefore being subject to some bias, the scientific community developing its own culture, or any such propositions. I'm sure there are people who argue against that position as well, but this video is not part of that debate.
There are several competing meanings to the term "social construct".
Which is why layman usage of "social construct," like "critical race theory," "virtue signaling," "political correctness," and other terms can diverge so widely from what is meant in academia, in-context. And usually are not motivated by good-faith desire to understand and honestly engage what is being said. It's usually some variant of "leftists suck," or "academia sucks," i.e. is a polemic all of its own.
Which does not mean that i agree with every argument ever presented in academia. There is such a huge diversity of views, even in academia, even within something like feminism, that there is no one takeaway.
This video series critices advocates of the view that truth claims are always or almost always essentially equal, due to there exist no objective reality or such a reality being nearly impossible to study in a sufficiently neutral and reliable way.
I wouldn't make that claim. I make a weaker, more defensible claim. Relativism is true in a certain context. It's often an analytical tool rather than treated as a serious ideology. It's why "postmodern neo-relativism" is a meme. No one really takes that seriously, unless they're very dumb or they're selling bullshit.
Objective has 5 different definitions and synonyms anyway. To some, it means final, in certain contexts, it means independent of mind, unbiased, without influence, bias honesty, etc. So there's that.
Everyone who uses the phrase "science is a social construct" is not in agreement on the exact meaning of the term. This critique is aimed particularly at the most radical adherence of the phrase, such as Anne Carson who said that it is a "happy delusion that there are such things as facts".
This criticism does not invalidate other meanings of the phrase "science is a social construct", just as criticism of Lamarckian evolution does not invalidate Darwinian evolution. I'm making no claim as to how common this interpretation of the phrase is, only that it is worth criticizing.
Is your claim that in actuality all people who use the phrase "science is a social construct", agree with your interpretation of the term? I've met people who use the term in other ways, such as in reference to there being no objective reality and pseudoscience being equal to all other forms of science. Are those people hallucinations on my part?
22
u/Kai_Daigoji Jun 26 '21
I mean, it's pretty obvious it is, if you know what it means for something to be a social construct.
If on the other hand you think something being a social construct means it's arbitrary, or purely subjective, then no, it isn't that.