Science: Man-made construct?

Plumbdumb · #1 6th April 2003, 03:47 PM

I've seen some posts stating that science is a man-made construct. I'n not sure that I correctly understand what is meant by this, whether it is valid or just the splitting of frog hairs. Comments, please.

Late_Cretaceous · #2 6th April 2003, 04:23 PM

Sounds like Post Modernism - the philosopy that even philosophers would not touch (it found some appeal in english and anthropology departments in the last decade). Accordingly, EVERYTHING in life - including stuff like the moon, are "cultural constructs". Science and all of it's discoveries are simply inventirons of the minds that pondered them. Post modernism still exists today, even after the Skokal Affair (try a google search).

To see just how idiotic postmodernism is check out the "post modern generator" which can randomly compose papers worth of publishing in post modernist journals such as Social Text: http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Zadok001 · #3 6th April 2003, 04:36 PM

Plumbdumb:

I'm not sure how you're using the term 'science.' The scientific method, certainly, is a man-made construct. Reality is not. The word 'science,' used differently, merely means the descriptive qualities of reality.

Please clarify.

To clarify. Religon: A Man-Made Construct? Does that rephrase make it clear why the question cannot be adequately answered?

lucaspa · #4 6th April 2003, 06:58 PM

Today at 02:47 PM Plumbdumb said this in Post #1

I've seen some posts stating that science is a man-made construct. I'n not sure that I correctly understand what is meant by this, whether it is valid or just the splitting of frog hairs. Comments, please.

Biblical literalists try to contrast "God's Word" with "man-made science".  By saying science is "man-made", the goal is to make science less reliable than "God's Word".

What Biblical literalists overlook is that Biblical interpretations are also man-made constructs.  Therefore, a literal interpretation of Genesis is just as much "man-made" as science.

They also overlook that Young Earth Creationism is a man-made construct based upon a literal reading of Genesis 1, but going far beyond that literal reading.

MartinM · #5 6th April 2003, 07:07 PM

Today at 08:23 PM Late_Cretaceous said this in Post #2 Post modernism still exists today, even after the Skokal Affair

You mean the Sokal hoax, yes?

To see just how idiotic postmodernism is check out the "post modern generator" which can randomly compose papers worth of publishing in post modernist journals such as Social Text: http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Hey, I lost that link a while back. Thanks.

Plumbdumb · #6 8th April 2003, 10:49 PM

6th April 2003 at 02:36 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #3

Plumbdumb:

I'm not sure how you're using the term 'science.'

 

Being an old fogey, to me science isn't just laws or principles men have formulated (eg. Newton's Law of Gravity) but the very existance  of gravity itself. I'm probably not being very clear here (Hence the Name) but I hope you understand what I mean.

"Science" being defined in my original post as a man-made construct is almost verbatim what a poster in anyther thread told me. I made the assumption that he meant all science however you wanted to look at it. /me shrugs. But then, I'm just.......

Arikay · #7 8th April 2003, 11:08 PM

Really, we view everything through a man made construct, from science to religion. However, science generally has less opinion in it than religion does.

Zadok001 · #8 8th April 2003, 11:56 PM

Plumbdumb:

If we say 'science' is the totality of accepted scientific theory, then yes, it is a man-made construct. Do we know it's right? No, not at all. Every one of our theories could be wrong. We don't have any evidence in support of this (else said theories would be falsified), but it is certainly possible.

Mechanical Bliss · #9 9th April 2003, 12:22 AM

[quote][b]Today at 09:49 PM Plumbdumb said this in Post #6 

Being an old fogey, to me science isn't just laws or principles men have formulated (eg. Newton's Law of Gravity) but the very existance  of gravity itself.

But, as has been explained, that's not really science. Science is a method, not the natural world itself.

That gravity exists is not science. The gravitational theory that describes the behavior of gravity as we have observed it, is.

"Science" being defined in my original post as a man-made construct is almost verbatim what a poster in anyther thread told me. I made the assumption that he meant all science however you wanted to look at it. /me shrugs. But then, I'm just.......

No explanation works if you insist that it applies "however you wanted to look at it" because there are an infinite number of ways of looking at something...few more reasonable than the rest, of course. Since science, however, is a methodology and the natural world is the natural world, that is the generally accepted distinction, as far as I know.

Plumbdumb · #10 9th April 2003, 12:53 AM

"However you wanted to look at it" was probably a poor choice of words. "However you want to define it" may have been better. But, as I told you in a PM Mechanical Bliss, I was educated in a galaxy far, far away, in a time long, long ago. Old thought patterns don't die easily, and some never do die.