Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

Never mind facts. Model dependent realism is the way forward :-)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism]

2+7 = 9 - but only in the realm of rational numbers.
protons, neutrons and electrons are not the smallest particles of the universe- we now have quarks.
there are not seven colours in the rainbow
it is a fact that I am a man (I am actually lying here - see it is not a fact actually)

Fact means a multitude of things.

haha - Superceeded would have perhaps been a better description but I guess my point was acknowledging that even GR doesn't always hold true.

I want to know when facts are not facts; when they can ever be social constructs.

England is as big as Mexico!

I have no idea when a fact is not a fact.

Maybe when an advance in science shows that an earlier model was wrong. I personally prefer thinking in these terms:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

to viewing things in such a black and white way.

Special relativity and general relativity honed the maths

Well that is a bit of an under-sell isn't it?

Newtonian physics is accurate enough to get a rocket to the moon.

Special relativity and general relativity honed the maths but made no difference to it being right or wrong. Even general relativity has its flaws.

I have no idea when a fact is not a fact.

well a fact is a fact is a fact isn't it....or hold on, maybe......

Newtonian gravity is a fact in certain circumstances and not in others.

@Nick

"maybe... "

My breath's bated!

'meddle with people's heads' - you mean bring to consciousness prejudices that they may not have examined. Oh the horror.

well a fact is a fact is a fact isn't it....or hold on, maybe......

How are we to know?

It's a mystery.

Speaking of no tolerance of debate, my employer's compulsory infliction of Implicit Bias training was a beauty. And I love Peterson's utter contempt for that loathsome attempt by universities in particular to meddle with people's heads.

Alternatively, there may be no preceding or subsequent slide. Nor any tolerance of debate. How are we to know?

Accepted. The picture may be misleading

"scientific facts are social constructs"

Is there a 'I'm squinting at the ignorance' emoji on MN?

A fact is a fact is a fact. People don't need basic arts training. People need basic science training.

This sort of bullshit from an anthropology class in the US

That is exactly the sort of thing Anthropology examines. Didn't women use to be subject to hysteria? They had floating wombs or something?

You question things. Is God real? Is the Earth the centre of the universe?

If that were in a Chem class you might want to get upset.

and also be cautious - maybe you need to take a class in context and montage. How do you know what weight to give that single image, what came after, before, what words contextualised it - you really need some basic arts training, before making assertions, radicalrooster.

scientific facts are social constructs - well, not so stupid. How do you access 'facts' - through language, language which articulates certain aspects and not others. I for one am greatly interested in Geothe's mode of optical science, which is incompatible with Newton's - both have purchase on reality but do not exhaust it.

I thought she made an arse out of herself.

Peterson is an intelligent and articulate man who came across well. He doesn't seem to be a 'provocateur', simply an intelligent person with a point of view.

Acknowledging socialisation and it being a major effect in sex differences isn't a precursor to being correct, it's simply one stance of several.

I like him more and Newman less after that interview.

This sort of bullshit from an anthropology class in the US

i.magaimg.net/img/1mou.jpg

god, when did the Daily Fail find this board?

'cultural differences' - right, so that has nothing to do with the sprurious sciences' of evolutionary biology/psychology. It is cultural, learnt, socially favoured and derived historically on the basis of the society in which it takes place. So a completely different thing to what JP is talking about. And anyway phony - in that within a culture you will find plenty who do not fit the stereotype - so really just anecdotal nonsense.

Corrupt in the sense that they have essentially been captured in ideological terms by postmodernists/marxists and the left overall. Certainly in the North American university system. In other words, an ideological cabal and a resultant lack of intellectual integrity.

That's before you get on to the basic pointlessness of much of the output of humanities and social science departments. I think the figure is around 80% of published output remaining entirely uncited/unread.

Corrupt?