It is my impression that ”… and all cultural constructs are equally valid” is at least connotatively associated with the notion of a “cultural construct”.
Can you say more about where this impression comes from?
I would agree with ”...and cultural constructs do not represent a uniquely valid objective truth,” and various things along those lines. But “all cultural constructs are equally valid” seems significantly overstating the case.
For example… I expect that most people who talk about cultural constructs at all would agree that chattel slavery and abolitionism are both cultural constructs. I doubt they would agree that they are equally valid for any understanding of “valid” that is at all relevant to this discussion.
I think that the expression “cultural construct” implies that the construct in question is a representation not of physical reality, but of something inside people’s heads.
Usually this is held to mean that cultural constructs are somewhat arbitrary, highly malleable, and do not involve laws of nature.
I think that the expression “cultural construct” implies that the construct in question is a representation not of physical reality, but of something inside people’s heads.
I think the scientific method is something that scientist do. It’s not an object in physical reality the way a chair happens to be.
Do you think that the scientific method-1800, the scientific method-1900, the scientific method-1950 and scientific method-2014 happen to be exactly the same thing?
I think the scientific method is something that scientist do. It’s not an object in physical reality the way a chair happens to be.
Yes, of course.
Do you think that the scientific method-1800, the scientific method-1900, the scientific method-1950 and scientific method-2014 happen to be exactly the same thing?
Well, I certainly agree that “cultural construct” implies (indeed, I would say it denotes) something inside people’s heads. And I agree that many people believe that, or at least are in the habit of thinking as if, the contents of people’s heads are somewhat arbitrary, highly malleable, and do not involve laws of nature.
I’m not sure how that relates to the ”… and all cultural constructs are equally valid” clause I asked about, though.
It relates through the not involving the laws of nature part. In a certain sense cultural constructs are not real. They are imaginary. And you can think of all imaginary things as about equally valid.
I am aware of holes in that argument, but getting back to the original point, when people call something a “cultural construct” there is a pretty heavy implication that whatever the replacement for it they have in mind is going to be at least as good and probably better.
It relates through the not involving the laws of nature part. In a certain sense cultural constructs are not real. They are imaginary. And you can think of all imaginary things as about equally valid.
Just because something is a cultural construct, and thus “imaginary” or pethaps even subjective to some extent, does not mean it’s not about reality. To think otherwise is simply a mind projection fallacy.
Can you say more about where this impression comes from?
I would agree with ”...and cultural constructs do not represent a uniquely valid objective truth,” and various things along those lines. But “all cultural constructs are equally valid” seems significantly overstating the case.
For example… I expect that most people who talk about cultural constructs at all would agree that chattel slavery and abolitionism are both cultural constructs. I doubt they would agree that they are equally valid for any understanding of “valid” that is at all relevant to this discussion.
Do you expect something different?
I think that the expression “cultural construct” implies that the construct in question is a representation not of physical reality, but of something inside people’s heads.
Usually this is held to mean that cultural constructs are somewhat arbitrary, highly malleable, and do not involve laws of nature.
I think the scientific method is something that scientist do. It’s not an object in physical reality the way a chair happens to be.
Do you think that the scientific method-1800, the scientific method-1900, the scientific method-1950 and scientific method-2014 happen to be exactly the same thing?
Yes, of course.
I don’t understand the question.
Well, I certainly agree that “cultural construct” implies (indeed, I would say it denotes) something inside people’s heads. And I agree that many people believe that, or at least are in the habit of thinking as if, the contents of people’s heads are somewhat arbitrary, highly malleable, and do not involve laws of nature.
I’m not sure how that relates to the ”… and all cultural constructs are equally valid” clause I asked about, though.
It relates through the not involving the laws of nature part. In a certain sense cultural constructs are not real. They are imaginary. And you can think of all imaginary things as about equally valid.
I am aware of holes in that argument, but getting back to the original point, when people call something a “cultural construct” there is a pretty heavy implication that whatever the replacement for it they have in mind is going to be at least as good and probably better.
Just because something is a cultural construct, and thus “imaginary” or pethaps even subjective to some extent, does not mean it’s not about reality. To think otherwise is simply a mind projection fallacy.
True, but I’d not place much trust on a map whose creators refuse to constantly check with the territory.
Mm. Yeah, I’ll accept that.