.....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.
-
-
You might want to revisit Wittgenstein on private language games.
-
I'm pretty sure I don't.
-
Now therein lies both the problem and the admission of the problem. I'll leave it here.
-
My lack of philosophy? Oh yes. I admit to that. This was rude, though. I'm sorry.https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/970670269814726657 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well if I want to say the sun is a chariot chasing a god, and according to your previous tweet, that's ok. Fact is you can't do that because sun, chariot, and god have social meanings not individual ones. You can't start using words anyway you want.
-
What? When have I ever said that was OK? I really can't be any clearer so if you're going to insist on misunderstanding me, I'd much rather you just went away and let me carry on having conversations with people who will address what I am actually saying.
-
I'm not saying it's OK to believe wrong things with that. And that was about believing wrong things. They were using the right words. 'Chariot' meant 'chariot' not 'Big ball of gas' because they thought it was a chariot and not a big ball of gas.
-
The moon goes around the earth La lune va autour du terre Different symbols w/ different cultural contexts, but the situation they describe was true before there were humans. That's provisional but true, while "the earth goes around the moon" is false. The referent is real. >
-
Moreover dogs know things we can't, b/c they hear things we can't. No culture involved. Dogs would still know these things if humans had never evolved.
-
Not to mention smell, dogs have about forty times more brain mass given over to smell than we do. What must that be like?
-
And yet dog farts are the absolute worst -- what's that about?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
All facts are socially constructed. And if you want to argue otherwise give me one example of a fact that isn't expressed in language.
-
There is an immutable truth. We express it with a social construct, language. But the truth is there, universal. If human knowledge is wiped out tomorrow, current religions will never come back, however scientific findings will happen again and science as we know it will be back.
-
And this is the point. This is what matters. This is what is argued over using the terms social constructivism. Colin is arguing a different philosophical point which is probably interesting and valid but not my point.
-
He's actually not far from what I think he's just improperly using the idea of social constructivism.
-
Which is? What's the proper use of socially constructed?
End of conversation
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.