Register to reply

Social Construction of Gender & Intersexed Individuals

by 0TheSwerve0
Tags: construction, gender, individuals, intersexed, social
Share this thread:
comwiz72
#19
Oct7-05, 02:59 PM
P: 29
Quote Quote by arildno
Evidently, you do not know a single thing of "nature" either;
just to make it clear, i am not trying to insult you or any other gay person, nor am i trying now to hijack the tread, so i will keep this brief.

why do you seem to just want to hate me or something, because i questioned your beliefs? i havent insulted you in the slightest in the entire thread, and yet all you have done is call me an "idiot" and tell me i know nothing.
arildno
#20
Oct7-05, 03:08 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Read and learn something for once.
De Waal is a prominent biologist:
http://www.geocities.com/willc7/bonobos.html
comwiz72
#21
Oct7-05, 03:21 PM
P: 29
ok i read the article, and i can see the point you are making, HOWEVER...

doesnt the article make the point that it is a SOCIAL type of sexual behaviour, not something that is an ingrained genetic preference? this is not the same thing, as your own source says: "For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior."

This is not the same view that homosexuals in the world hold, is it? My understanding of homosexuals is that they believe that their genetics cause them no attraction for women, but for men.
OK, but the bonobo, according to your own article, uses sex not due to attraction, but for reconcilliation. So, when in human social situations does this occur?

I cannot understand how you can compare the two, as your own source seems to describe a vastly different type of interaction.
0TheSwerve0
#22
Oct7-05, 04:24 PM
0TheSwerve0's Avatar
P: 405
Quote Quote by Smurf
Female. There is no confusion. If you have a vagina, you are a female. If you have a penis, you are a male. If you have both you are that other word that I can't remember right now. If you have none then your bladder will burst and you will die before your first birthday.... unless doctors decide to cut you open and you live on life support from day one of your life. In that case, we need a new word - or maybe there is one already I just don't know it. If you reproduce without a partner you are asexual. It's very clear.
Though this looks like a scientific view, it is actually a religious view in disguise. Western culture is based on Plato, was carried on by Christian dogma/mythology, and is now carried on by science. Notice how similar your argument (thinking scientistically) sounds to a religious one -

the male is the begettor/creator/seed, the female is the soil/field
=
males inseminate (from the word seed) the female who bears the child

sex is for reproduction
=
sex is for reproduction (there are other ways of seeing sex)

And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. God is all-knowing, all-powerful.
=
there are two sexes, males usu seen as rational and good at "rational" subjects, eg math, spatial abilities, logic studies

....also has consequences for kinship, tho I know there is debate about where a female's place is, it is usu assumed we know where a male's place is.
Also, seems that male scientists have female-like levels of hormones, so how does that fit in with what is traditionally thought?

homosexuality is unnatural, and a sin
=
homosexuality is unnatural and a case of deviation from "normal" sexuality

....I've written a paper on this topic if you'd like me to post it.

If a person is female, but is asexual (has no sex drive) then she still has female gametes, chromosomes, and genitalia. Yes. But, what is her sexuality if she prefers not to have sex at all, yet prefers the company of women mentally/emotionally?

If a person has male XY chromosomes, but develops into a female, E.G. Androgen Insensitivity
Chromosomally male, but have more feminine features:
The testes make male amounts of testosterone and DHT but no androgenic sexual differentiation occurs. Most of the prostate and other internal male genital ducts fail to form because of lack of testosterone. A shallow vagina forms, surrounded by normally-formed labia. Phallic tissue remains small and becomes a clitoris. At birth, a child with CAIS appears to be a normal girl, with no reason to suspect an incongruous karyotype, male testosterone level, and lack of uterus.

They have male chromosomes, female appearance, female looking genitalia with underdeveloped testes that do not descend, no sperm or eggs, and produce normal amounts of testosterone. So do we use gametes, chromosomes, appearance, or hormone levels to determine what sex this person is?

Also, females exposed to large amounts of testosterone have a masculinized brain and tend to do better at spatial abilities. Though, too much testosterone ruins this spatial ability. Similarly, a female with Turner's syndrome produces no testosterone and is sterile and severe lack in spatial skills and even traditionally "female" skills. So they have only one X chromosome, no gametes, no "male" hormones, lack skills in both divisive categories...so what are they?


Quote Quote by Smurf
Gender is biologically defined. The only confusion I can think of is if someone get's a sex change. Part of them (externally) is one gender, the other part (internal organs that cannot be changed as of yet) are another part. Maybe we can use that other word I can't think of to describe these people. Possibly with an "Artifical" prefix on it, although I doubt they'd approve - they obviously want to be referred to as their new gender.

Merely because you do not want to follow the culturally prescribed gender roles does not mean you are of a different gender. One mine as well ask "If I disagree with all culturally prescribed roles, does that make me non-human?". The answer is obviously no.

trait sex? how do you mean? I'm male. My personality is probably considered to be rather feminin in my current culture, although it would be considered perfectly Masculin in Sweden.
Gender is a social construction. I know it's hard to see it any other way, indoctrination is hard to break. In other cultures, there are 3rd genders, and even then people see themselves as a mix of both. Gender can be anything we want it to be. Just as race is socially constructed, really it is just a melanoma index that ascribes personality traits as if they were inherent. We can assign any traits to gender and think of it in any way, ie as based in sex, astrology, occupation (Native Americans do this), on and on.

I am not questioning my sex as we define it, it is female in all aspects. I am questioning the reach of our concept of sex. Does it reach to mental abilities, personalities, and social roles?
Smurf
#23
Oct7-05, 05:32 PM
P: 2,891
Gender is a biological trait. It is determined at the point of insemination and can not be changed. Ever. The classifying difference between the genders is their sexual organs. If a person does or used to at any point, produce sperm, then they are male. If a person does or did at any point, produce ovums, they are female. This is biological classification - it is a method. It is not a statemend capable of declaring truth or falsity. It is neither correct or false, and never can be. It is not indoctrination.

I do not know what you are trying to say, no idea what so ever in fact. All I can gather is that you are attempting to classify personality types in a dualistic viewpoint with Perfect Masculinity and Femininity being the extremes. You are suggesting what characteristics should be included in this classification. You are also suggesting that these characteristics differ from culture to culture - to what end I'm not sure. I doubt much of this is a correct interpretation, please clarify.

You also seem to have something against scientific definitions, with no discernable reason.

I would disagree that personality types should not be either put into a dualistic viewpoint, or related to a person's gender what so ever.
Moonbear
#24
Oct7-05, 08:18 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,271
Quote Quote by comwiz72
doesnt the article make the point that it is a SOCIAL type of sexual behaviour, not something that is an ingrained genetic preference? this is not the same thing, as your own source says: "For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior."
That's not what that means. Social behaviors do not mean they do not have biological basis, it means they are affiliative...things like grooming each other or sniffing each other constitute social behavior...anything that promotes social bonding among conspecifics. Sexual behaviors refer to mating behaviors. There are also categories of behavior like aggressive behaviors (fighting or defending territories), feeding behaviors, maternal or paternal behaviors, play behaviors, etc. These all require biological processes.
Moonbear
#25
Oct7-05, 08:30 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,271
Quote Quote by Smurf
The classifying difference between the genders is their sexual organs.
You've confused the terms sex and gender. Sex is defined by sexual organs and whether you have two X chromosomes or an X and Y chromosome. Gender is the self-identity a person has as to whether they feel masculine or feminine. This also does not necessarily relate to sexuality. Someone who is a male (sex) homosexual (sexuality) does not need to feel feminine (gender), but may identify themselves as very masculine (gender). A genetic male (sex), may feel feminine (gender) and seek gender reassignment surgery (sex-change operation), consider themselves female (gender) and prefer the pronoun "she," but remains genetically male (sex), and may prefer relationships with either other men (sexuality; homosexual) or women (sexuality; heterosexual).

It's okay to be confused about the terminology, because it IS confusing, especially when mixed in with common usage of words to be synonymous, when scientific usage gives them very distinct meanings (I once listened to an entire lecture about transgendered homosexuals and heterosexuals, and realized that even despite my background on sexual behavior and the distinctions between sex, gender and sexuality, I had a really hard time keeping track of whether a homosexual, male-to-female transexual would be someone who prefered males or females).
motai
#26
Oct7-05, 08:41 PM
motai's Avatar
P: 496
Quote Quote by Moonbear
Gender is the self-identity a person has as to whether they feel masculine or feminine.
On a similar level this is paralled in linguistic terminology. Language forms have gender but they do not necessarily have sex.

And it is very confusing trying to distinguish the terms "sex" and "gender" when one's culture has the norm of using them as synonyms. A recent (and rather confusing) debate similar to this one cropped up in my anthropology class.
Moonbear
#27
Oct7-05, 09:01 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,271
Quote Quote by comwiz72
you must also consider the psychological perspectives...

to my knowledge, there has not been any "gay" gene found for example.
There may not be, but not having identified such a gene does not mean it does not exist. Vast portions of the human genome, although sequenced, remain to have functions determined. Besides, there is also no guarantee that a genetic component would involve only one gene (it's probaby pretty unlikely even), making it harder to identify a genetic component.

in fact, this is an attempt (in my opinion)
It's either a fact or an opinion, and unless you provide strong evidence for your claim, it will remain an opinion.

view: homosexuality is due to feeling of never being fully accepted and afirmed as a man (or woman of course, but im speaking more of males here). all the guys here know what its like growing up as a boy, and if you were to never feel like they "thought" of you as one of the guys, then you might be led to believe this, even subconsciously. then you would begin to idolise them, feeling they were better than you, and this could lead to feelings of attraction.
Is this just guessing, or do you have some sources to back up this statement?


But in terms of the topic, you can think that being gay is unnatural for one reason: if it is not genetic, then its unnatural.
That is incorrect. Genetic factors are not the only natural/biological factors that influence sexuality. Hormones contribute greatly. There is also a growing field of epigentics that addresses inheritance of traits other than via classic chromosomal inheritance (either through mitochondrial DNA or post-transcriptional modifications of the DNA). There are also prenatal effects of hormones that have dramatic effects throughout adulthood.

Some references that provide examples of this:
Wintour EM, Moritz KM, Johnson K, Ricardo S, Samuel CS, Dodic M.Reduced nephron number in adult sheep, hypertensive as a result of prenatal glucocorticoid treatment. J Physiol. 2003 Jun 15;549(Pt 3):929-35.

Kutzler MA, Ruane EK, Coksaygan T, Vincent SE, Nathanielsz PW. Effects of three courses of maternally administered dexamethasone at 0.7, 0.75, and 0.8 of gestation on prenatal and postnatal growth in sheep. Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):313-9.

Savabieasfahani M, Lee JS, Herkimer C, Sharma TP, Foster DL, Padmanabhan V. Fetal programming: testosterone exposure of the female sheep during midgestation disrupts the dynamics of its adult gonadotropin secretion during the periovulatory period. Biol Reprod. 2005 Jan;72(1):221-9.

Unsworth WP, Taylor JA, Robinson JE. Prenatal programming of reproductive neuroendocrine function: the effect of prenatal androgens on the development of estrogen positive feedback and ovarian cycles in the ewe. Biol Reprod. 2005 Mar;72(3):619-27.

Moss TJ, Doherty DA, Nitsos I, Sloboda DM, Harding R, Newnham JP. Effects into adulthood of single or repeated antenatal corticosteroids in sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;192(1):146-52.

however, if its genetic, then this means that it is a genetic DEFECT, as homosexuality holds no purpose within nature, and for example, in the animal world, were there to BE ga animals, then they would not attempt to lead "normal" lives and would never have offspring, and so the faulty gene would never be passed on...
Again, that's not necessarily true. There could simply be recessive genes or multiple alleles involved that are present in low frequency in the population. In terms of fitness, you have to take that into context of the entire population, not just individual animals. If a population becomes overcrowded, having non-reproductive individuals may be advantageous in minimizing continued over-growth of the population beyond the limits of the resources. Alternatively, many species are social species because there is more safety in larger numbers, so again, individuals that are not part of the breeding population may remain beneficial for maintaining herd size. Yet another possibility would be if these non-reproductive individuals contribute to the survival of the offspring of their siblings in conditions where an "extended family" is needed to provide sufficient care of offspring to adulthood, such as in long-lived species with a long juvenile period, or in harsh climates.

Variation among individuals of a species is perfectly normal. Indeed, there does not even need to be an advantage for species survival from individuals carrying a specific trait to consider that trait normally and naturally occurring.
Moonbear
#28
Oct7-05, 09:10 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,271
Quote Quote by motai
On a similar level this is paralled in linguistic terminology. Language forms have gender but they do not necessarily have sex.

And it is very confusing trying to distinguish the terms "sex" and "gender" when one's culture has the norm of using them as synonyms. A recent (and rather confusing) debate similar to this one cropped up in my anthropology class.
Absolutely! To even take it a step further, there are culturally determined gender roles that also have nothing to do with gender identity. For example, I do not conform to the culturally defined female gender role of being the meek housewife who stays home as a primary child-caregiver and cooks and cleans all day. I couldn't care less about wearing make-up or the latest fashion trends, or sitting around reading "girly" magazines at the hairdresser. On the other hand, my gender identity is definitely female.
Moonbear
#29
Oct7-05, 09:16 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,271
Quote Quote by comwiz72
dont think the "idiot" words are needed
You're right, that was uncalled for. I don't agree with your statements, but that is no reason for anyone to start name-calling. This is a sensitive topic that requires everyone remain on their most mature and respectful behavior in order to remain educational for all of the participants.
0TheSwerve0
#30
Oct8-05, 03:16 AM
0TheSwerve0's Avatar
P: 405
Quote Quote by Smurf
Gender is a biological trait. It is determined at the point of insemination and can not be changed. Ever. The classifying difference between the genders is their sexual organs. If a person does or used to at any point, produce sperm, then they are male. If a person does or did at any point, produce ovums, they are female. This is biological classification - it is a method. It is not a statemend capable of declaring truth or falsity. It is neither correct or false, and never can be. It is not indoctrination.
Sex may be a biological fact, but gender is not. Gender is a constructed concept that is not synonymous with sex, but may be determined by it. It does not have to be determined by it, but it is in this culture. Please use correct usage:
Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.
-From dictionary.com


Quote Quote by Smurf
I do not know what you are trying to say, no idea what so ever in fact. All I can gather is that you are attempting to classify personality types in a dualistic viewpoint with Perfect Masculinity and Femininity being the extremes. You are suggesting what characteristics should be included in this classification. You are also suggesting that these characteristics differ from culture to culture - to what end I'm not sure. I doubt much of this is a correct interpretation, please clarify.

You also seem to have something against scientific definitions, with no discernable reason.

I would disagree that personality types should not be either put into a dualistic viewpoint, or related to a person's gender what so ever.
I can tell you have no idea, I excuse you from further discussion. I am not in fact trying to classify personality in a dualistic viewpoint, I am saying that it is done in this way. In fact, I stated in my first post that we should discuss the merit of doing so. I figured I wasn't getting through to you, so I would move on to discussing what types of qualities go with which sex (because it is what you accept). I did in fact ask which qualities are neuter, but you seemed to pass that part over. I thought you would see my first post as a series of interconnected questions from which to gain understanding from our reification of our world.

I can give examples of differences in conceptions of gender roles in other cultures:
Perhaps one of the most telling studies of the phenomenon of gender roles is that done by Margaret Mead, who studied three tribes of people, all living within a twenty-mile radius of each other. One tribe, the Arapesh, socialized both their males and their females to exhibit qualities considered in our society to be "feminine": they were warm, cooperative, and nurturing, and according to their histories had always been so. The Mundugamor tribe, on the other hand, raised their children to be what we consider "masculine": competitive, aggressive, and oppositional. Once more, according to their stories, they had always been this way. The third tribe, the Tchambuli, displayed gender roles the reverse of those prevalent in our society. The women were dominant and controlling, the sexual aggressors, the principle workers, and in control. The men were emotionally dependent on the women, vain about their appearance, and reported by both themselves and the women to be irresponsible (A. S. Walters, personal communication, February 9, 1993).

I cite these differences to question what is a more correct way of assigning qualities to genders, since we do it already. Further, I'd like to get to a point where I can bring up whether or not we should use sex to determine a part of a person's identity, ie being of the female sex, I am of the female gender, and am therefore "fill in gender-specific quality." I am merely trying to point out that perhaps we are products of culture and vice versa. If this is true, then we may being looking from a perspective that is limiting, eg racists who are indoctrinated into their way of thinking often have a hard time seeing the point that race is socially constructed and incorrectly organizes their worldview.

Again with the dualism which is a part of Western culture........which I've challenged over and over. Please be more attentive.

In my first post, I also stated why I think science should not be the end all be all of knowledge as it is a product of culture and is therefore created within a framework of Western culture and also works to reinforce that framework. I would like to use a more unbiased source, ie simple logic. That is why I have questioned at every step why we should accept culturally ingrained concepts as ultimate truths.
0TheSwerve0
#31
Oct8-05, 03:18 AM
0TheSwerve0's Avatar
P: 405
Quote Quote by Moonbear
You've confused the terms sex and gender. Sex is defined by sexual organs and whether you have two X chromosomes or an X and Y chromosome. Gender is the self-identity a person has as to whether they feel masculine or feminine. This also does not necessarily relate to sexuality. Someone who is a male (sex) homosexual (sexuality) does not need to feel feminine (gender), but may identify themselves as very masculine (gender). A genetic male (sex), may feel feminine (gender) and seek gender reassignment surgery (sex-change operation), consider themselves female (gender) and prefer the pronoun "she," but remains genetically male (sex), and may prefer relationships with either other men (sexuality; homosexual) or women (sexuality; heterosexual).

It's okay to be confused about the terminology, because it IS confusing, especially when mixed in with common usage of words to be synonymous, when scientific usage gives them very distinct meanings (I once listened to an entire lecture about transgendered homosexuals and heterosexuals, and realized that even despite my background on sexual behavior and the distinctions between sex, gender and sexuality, I had a really hard time keeping track of whether a homosexual, male-to-female transexual would be someone who prefered males or females).
Thank you, maybe I didn't make that clear to smurf before. Thank you to Motai as well. I posted a response before I read the rest. I'm also taking anthro classes (anthro major). It's hard to explain these concepts much less present them in a way that doesn't look as if I'm merely bashing Western culture, and in doing so science. Same thing happened to anthropologists with the "Science in American Life" exhibit at the Smithsonian. They tried to show science in context and were accused of demonizing science. Science is an institution and as such has a part in controlling processes.
loseyourname
#32
Oct8-05, 01:37 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
loseyourname's Avatar
P: 3,634
Quote Quote by 0TheSwerve0
Thank you, maybe I didn't make that clear to smurf before. Thank you to Motai as well. I posted a response before I read the rest. I'm also taking anthro classes (anthro major). It's hard to explain these concepts much less present them in a way that doesn't look as if I'm merely bashing Western culture, and in doing so science. Same thing happened to anthropologists with the "Science in American Life" exhibit at the Smithsonian. They tried to show science in context and were accused of demonizing science. Science is an institution and as such has a part in controlling processes.
I won't speak for everybody here, but one of the problems I have is that statements like this mistake the history of science, or oftentimes the set of accepted theories that guide current scientific research, for science itself. As far as I'm concerned, science is a methodology. The events that result from the use of technology, or even the technology itself, are not science, they are events and machines.

Science at its base is an epistemology, a set of guidelines that uses inductive logic to distinguish between which hypotheses we should discard as explanations for natural phenomena, and which we should pursue. It is also possible to conceive of science as an ontology, dedicated to the existence of physical relations as explananda. As such, science is certainly open to critique, but the critique should be methodological. If you think science is defective in any way, then suggest a better method for conducting research into natural phenomena. Obviously, anthropology has nothing to say on this matter, as anthropologists are themselves using the scientific method, validating its usage in the most concrete way they possibly can.
0TheSwerve0
#33
Oct9-05, 03:05 AM
0TheSwerve0's Avatar
P: 405
Quote Quote by loseyourname
I won't speak for everybody here, but one of the problems I have is that statements like this mistake the history of science, or oftentimes the set of accepted theories that guide current scientific research, for science itself. As far as I'm concerned, science is a methodology. The events that result from the use of technology, or even the technology itself, are not science, they are events and machines.

Science at its base is an epistemology, a set of guidelines that uses inductive logic to distinguish between which hypotheses we should discard as explanations for natural phenomena, and which we should pursue. It is also possible to conceive of science as an ontology, dedicated to the existence of physical relations as explananda. As such, science is certainly open to critique, but the critique should be methodological. If you think science is defective in any way, then suggest a better method for conducting research into natural phenomena. Obviously, anthropology has nothing to say on this matter, as anthropologists are themselves using the scientific method, validating its usage in the most concrete way they possibly can.


It is still a product of culture. The point of the "Science in American Life" was to show science in context rather than treating it as a sacred cow....which is what the scientists were used to. Previous exhibits seemed to be mainly about inspiring awe and wonder in the blessings of science, e.g. technologies and explanatory theories which also serve to reinforce science's place as an ultimate authority. I did distinguish between the scientific method and scientistic thinking in one of my posts. I think that's what you are referring to. Yeah, how do you validate science except through the scientific method? Can't really take any more steps back to look in on this process. It's almost like a religious belief, e.g. Christianity - you can't penetrate the mysteries of God so you must simply accept them on their own terms.
0TheSwerve0
#34
Oct9-05, 03:12 AM
0TheSwerve0's Avatar
P: 405
I don't see any point in arguing about science's place in culture. Is there anyone who would like to address the ideas I brought up in my first post?
loseyourname
#35
Oct9-05, 03:50 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
loseyourname's Avatar
P: 3,634
Quote Quote by 0TheSwerve0
It is still a product of culture.
As much as anything else is, but it's also a product of individual innovation. The primitive empirical investigations conducted by DaVinci, Willis, and Boyle, actually went against the prevailing rationalistic methodology of the culture these men worked in and grew up in (just look at how much Hobbes struggled to accept Boyle's results). Even as late as the Optics and Principia, Newton was being a revolutionary in rejecting the geometrical methods of Descartes and Leibniz, the methods that western civilization for over a thousand years had said were the best way to uncover truth. When Bacon and Mill developed an inductive logic to codify the scientific method and make it philosophically rigorous, they were embarking on unknown territory, working with hardly any academic context at all.

The point of the "Science in American Life" was to show science in context rather than treating it as a sacred cow....which is what the scientists were used to.
It didn't treat science at all, though. It treated human military action. The best you can say about the part of science is that it enabled the development of technology that enabled human military action. The scientists were used to having their decisions in which direction they took their research being treated as a sacred cow. Perhaps that can be critiqued, but even then, no scientific research can ever dictate a course of action. Science cannot tell you to drop a bomb. Before we get too hung up on the fact that several hundred thousand people died due to the use of nuclear weapons (many more would have died had atomics not been used, by the way), let us remember that nuclear power may very well free us from our dependence on fossil fuels until we are able to develop better alternative energies. Would the world really have been a better place had Oppenheimer, et al told the US and Germany "screw you, we're not doing this?"

Previous exhibits seemed to be mainly about inspiring awe and wonder in the blessings of science, e.g. technologies and explanatory theories which also serve to reinforce science's place as an ultimate authority.
Maybe I'm too much of a pure academic, but I see the role of science as being a pure arbiter of naturalistic knowledge. Do you want to know something about nature? Then you turn to science. What you do with the knowledge - make the world a better place, or nuke it, is entirely up to the people and culture in possession of that knowledge (and, of course, the necessary materials to use the knowledge). I don't see a display of atomic destruction in Japan as being a critique of science; it is a critique of the Truman administration.

I did distinguish between the scientific method and scientistic thinking in one of my posts.
You should probably distinguish between scientistic thinking and scientific thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but scientism is the metaphysical belief that only science can bestow knowledge of any kind. Perhaps, in its strongest sense, it can also be said to be the belief that all of the precepts of currently accepted scientific theory are correct. If this is the case, then scientistic thinking is actually at odds with scientific thinking.

I think that's what you are referring to. Yeah, how do you validate science except through the scientific method?
I think you might be mincing terms a bit here, too. If by "science" you mean the accepted theories that are contained in science textbooks, then yes, of course the only way to validate a scientific theory is to use the scientific method. However, if by science you mean what I mean, that is, the scientific method itself, then it cannot validate itself. Mill's System of Logic and the tenets of inductive logic that he lays out in it, may remain the best justification we have of the scientific method itself, at least philosophically speaking. In common sense terms, we believe the method to work on pragmatic grounds. Rationalistic attempts at science rarely resulted in theories that gave true predictions, whereas science as carried out by Newton, explained by Bacon, and honed over the following four centuries, has been quite successful.

Can't really take any more steps back to look in on this process.
Read System of Logic. The furthest step back that we can probably take is either the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature or the Law of Causality, depending on whether or not you think they are the same thing (Mill did not, but many do). I say "probably" because there are some, like Mill, who try to argue for these principles, some, like Hume, who try to argue against them, and some, like Kant, who treat them as properly basic. How you will treat them is your own decision.
loseyourname
#36
Oct9-05, 03:56 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
loseyourname's Avatar
P: 3,634
Quote Quote by 0TheSwerve0
I don't see any point in arguing about science's place in culture.
It's interesting that you bring that up, because I think the argument can be made that the success of science as manifested in the products created by scientists, have made academic society outside of the sciences less scientific. "Scientism," if I take your usage of the term correctly, almost seems the default position these days. Anything published in a scientific journal is treated by the wider public as gospel. The institution of the academic sciences has been so wildly successful, that it seems to be assumed that they can never be wrong. (Oddly enough, the general public doesn't seem to realize the great amount of disagreement that still exists in most fields, especially in the social sciences - someone must be wrong!)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Is nature a reflection of who we are as individuals? General Discussion 1
Do individuals most often convert science? General Discussion 1
Why are we individuals? General Discussion 75