This is just a confusion in terms: "Science" = process by which humans examine the universe "Facts" = truths about the universe that cannot be altered Science is by definition constructed. Facts are nothttps://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1368259842222268421 …
-
Show this thread
-
-
Replying to @BanjoBouchon
Yeh but he doubled down on the important bit, which is this idea that some people think that there is no objective reality. That's not true - the idea is that there is no way we can objectively measure reality, not that reality doesn't exist
4 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @BanjoBouchon
I'm not convinced that some people don't genuinely believe that there is no such thing as objective reality. But in any case, whether you believe it doesn't exist or simply can't be known, both lead to absurdity.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @whsource @BanjoBouchon
Some people may believe pretty much every ludicrous idea, but it's not the main argument. But I think it's pretty much a given that our system for analyzing the world is socially constructed, regardless of the reality we're trying to assess
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Yeah but ultimately it’s pointless. I could as well say that this statement you make about the world is a social construct, and therefore not objectively true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BanjoBouchon @whsource
You could, and in some instances ~you'd be correct~. Eugenics was a major branch of science for decades, and considered objective truth, even though it was the epitome of a social construct
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Doesn’t eugenics work for dogs ? Eugenism is more about morality (it is obviously bad for many reasons) than science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BanjoBouchon @whsource
Breeding =/= eugenics. Eugenics is predicated on the idea that there are characteristics that are objectively "better" about some people compared to others, which goes back to our socially constructed attitudes towards what is considered "better"
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @BanjoBouchon
It's not a social construct to believe that one could select humans for certain traits though. What's socially constructed is the traits we choose to select, and the ethics around what methods we use.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Sure, but the entire purpose of eugenics as a science was to first define what traits we value and then select for them in the population. And this was a massive field which continued in California well into the 60s and 70s
-
-
Idk, it’s more like a social ideology « using science » to achieve something. Like medicine, in a way, use science to achieve the goal of keeping peoples alive and healthy. (which is not a given, like when patient would prefer we help them die quickly and painlessly)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I would say that eugenics has a philosophical aspect to it and a scientific aspect to it. Like medecine. It’s part science but motivated by a philosophy about what matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.