Objectivity Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

I sympathize. I think part of the problem though might be the word “objectivity.” How do you define it? For myself, I’ve been toying with the weaker phrase “trans-subjective” to affirm that there is more to reality that mere subjectivity, without having to defend a claim to objectivity. E

Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

Ernie: "For all their many flaws, I actually am grateful to the social constructivist for reminding us that we never know our own blind spots." For sure, point well taken. However, where I am these days is in full dudgeon against the extremes of subjectivisim. The valid insights of, say,

Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

Hi Billy, > > I wonder what Ernie's take on the video is. Mostly I thought you’d enjoy a good kindred spirit rant, from the email as much as the video. However, I must also confess to being a “weak” social constructivist. :-) Obviously I agree that the long term answers of science are

Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

Centroids: Not sure why this was called to my attention. Basically I agree with the video but also think that its message is so obviously true that discussion isn't necessary. Sort of like a discussion of whether the British were defeated at Yorktown. There is nothing to argue about. This

[RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

For Billy. :-) Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: "Stephen D. Williams" > Date: March 5, 2018 at 10:21:48 PST > To: f...@xent.com > Subject: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies > as Virus > Reply-To: Friends of Rohit Khare