Yes, but that's the difference between how we construct knowledge claims and what those claims are about.
-
-
-
Yes. The collecting of the knowledge and the knowledge itself.
-
But even the knowledge itself is socially constructed. If there were no humans they'd be no knowledge.
-
In the sense that there wouldn't be anyone to know it, yes. There'd be no knowers. , no possessors of knowledge. This is a semantic thing. When we say we seek knowledge, it is not humans knowing things that we seek but the right answer to a thing.
-
The knowledge itself - the right answer to a thing eg, water is H2O - is not socially constructed. Nor is the knower - an intelligent ape. The process of obtaining this knowledge and framing of it is dependent on society & the methods it formulates for knowing & relating this.
-
This is what is at the crux of the disagreement. We all agree that the acquisition of knowledge is dependent on developments of human methods like science in society. We disagree on whether there is objective knowledge/truth/facts and whether we can get at them at all reliably.
-
No you see this is what leaves you right open to a postmodernist critique. You have to distinguish knowledge (a human product) from the world (which may be a human product (society)). But knowledge of the world is socially constructed. This means any knowledge claim could...1/
-
.....be wrong. You have to distinguish how we know things, from what things there are. But we can only know what things there are through our descriptions of them.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's not though. If you didn't know anyone to socialize with you could still generate knowledge. You could still experiment and determine things about reality.
-
Please tell him that. He is driving me mad with point missing. It;s a philosopher thing and it doesn't relate to the reality of the epistemological problem we are currently dealing with.
-
I think u started it tho :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And *that* acceptance, that objective reality is the deciding factor in wether a tree-fall in a human-absent woods still creates a vibration that beings with the capacity to "hear" would hear, is what separates rational from irrational reasoning.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is the most concise explanation I’ve seen of this philosophical confusion that bedevils postmodernism. The notion of human construction of knowledge is perfectly valid, but it doesn’t nullify an underlying reality. Thank you.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
God. I admire you hard work and persistence in dealing with this shit. I don't how you do it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is logic a human construct? I don't think so. Logic is math. An alien civilization would have discovered and systematized it along the same lines. Is information a human construct? The information I have tells me no.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Social construction is boring. It's vapid. Not as clever as people think it is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.