When a scientist or statistician says statistics are facts, (s)he means done properly, not some sloppy model that doesn't follow all the rules. Being familiar with TED talks it should be clear that he didn't have time to vet the statistics (not to mention people would fall asleep). A serious scientist in any field is not likely to make statistics up to support a talk. Their colleagues find out they have been fast and loose with the numbers and their reputation could be seriously damaged. A Facebook post has none of those restrictions. Also, when we speak of facts, I don't think we're saying that a ruler cannot claim to measure 20 cm, because it isn't a laser range finder, so the claim is a lie. The bigger problem to me is that there are few objective measures of well being that we can agree with. For an investor, making 50,000 on his/her investments (your currency here) might be what we call "chump change" in the USA. But to me, making $50,000 is a living wage. Hurrah! Certainly GDP doesn't tell you much about the socio-economic strata in a society. Neither does unemployment. Of course a job is a job, but all jobs are not sufficient to provide a living wage. Unemployment could be zero and huge portions of your society may still need help. However, I think I understood why he used those measures. That is because they are reportable facts. Massimo seemed quite sincere and his arguments rang true to me [clearly false ++++++++not sure+++++*+++objectively true]. I picked the * instead of "objectively true" because I didn't fact check him, i.e. I did not check his sources. I will most likely NOT check his sources and I don't intend to pursue a career as a social scientist.
I don't like the way it's worded in the video, but I think the point he is trying to make is that what some people are calling "facts" (i.e. alternative facts) are being socially constructed. Actual facts are true, but we don't always know the truth. As science progresses, often viewpoints change because we know more information. Statistical inference is very helpful, but the findings are only as good as the data and methods of collecting the data. Honestly, I didn't like hearing "statistics are facts" because of that reason. The statistics might show some finding that fits the theory, but if the methodology is not properly done, the findings are severely limited. There are always limitations and those are rarely ever discussed outside of the scientific community. There is a problem in science that the only findings people are interested in are when the analysis "found something". Null findings are rarely published, so let's say 50 studies found nothing, but 1 found something and was published. It makes that 1 study seem pretty factual to the average person and with a media spin and confirmation bias, it turns into a socially constructed "fact".
another thing that i find really important. Is that some also like to forget the context around a fact (ex by generalising) and that can transform something that would be a fact to a statement without proof. ex: imagine a have a ruler that mesure 20cm. i could say: "a ruler is 20 cm" that would be a generalisation (a easily disprovable one at that) or: "this ruler is 20cm" this one is better but could be disproven by measuring with enough precision. or: "this ruler claim to mesure 20cm" now that's a fact. That why it's important to cite the study that have taken the mesure. And clearly state that it's what "They" have taken. Because every studies has some amount of bias and inaccuracies. That even why citing multiple trully independent sources is important in science.
I think we also live in a post trust era. It seems to be there is so much data and so many unstated motives that even when people see various viewpoints and question the motives of those that provide them
Good talk, but there is an important non sequitur. From the fact that people form their beliefs based mainly on the opinions of others does no follow that facts - objetive reality - are socialy constructed, but just that beliefs are socialy influenced. Facts - that which makes opinions true or false - are objetive, even though some facts might be institutional (in Searle's sense of institution).
Sorry, but your premise has a problem - subjectivity is inherent in our thinking. This why our circles of trust correlate with our social circles, and social factors are more determinative of what we define as objective facts. But, as the phenomenon known as Chinese Whispers shows, who and how information is transmitted can distort and even change it. So, to claim that social media can be a trusted medium is false. As users, we have no quality control over the information presented to us in that medium. Thus, being sceptical of anything is a basic requirement. As someone wiser than myself said, "if you fall for everything, what can you stand up for?" And has been shown, those with the money to do so are spending it on manipulating and manufacturing consent for political policies by leveraging social media. It might be an urban legend, but the idea that Silicon Valley CEOs would not allow their children to use social media is telling.
I don't agree in many statements Massimo proposed, I believe that social constructivism is an ideological oversimplification of the world, social interactions and biology(if even taken in account). I'm no prfessional, but I would advice myself and others to research more about the topic.
The speaker seems like a very intelligent and well meaning person. It's hard though to imagine the majority of readers or receivers of information actually going to the work of fact checking what they read (if they read at all). It's just too much work and too time consuming and probably in many cases inconclusive. There still is a place for publications that are responsible for what they print or broadcast. The solution to the spread of fake news cannot fall on the shoulders of the individual.
I have to object to terminology here. Facts are not socially constructed more than truth. If a fact is not true, it's not a fact. Of course - you might say that "facts" are only our current best understanding of truth. ... but still. People can't just go around and invent their own facts.
@@shamanking19042000 Be sceptical of all things that claim to be facts. In fact, define what you mean by the term fact. We have too many opinions that are not based on information that has been tested. Democratising knowledge creation needs quality control because, crowds aren't always wise. We have so many emperors walking about in their "new clothes" and too few children laughing at their nakedness.
iF ONLY FOLKS WOULD SPEND THE TIME TO CHECK AND CROSS CHECK 'INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM WHATEVER SOURCE, THEY MAY EVEN GET GET CLOSE TO FOLLOWING/FINDING objective truth.. With what I have come to learn I am glad I am no longer a youngster.
yes take it even if it will have no effect aother than negative for you cus youre not over 40-50! keep filling pheizers pockets, support big pharma! i thought leftists hated corporations and big business/big pharma, but I guess as long as what right-wingers think, you need to support the opposite no matter the facts
Wikipedia does fairly well, at least it enables divergent voices to argue out publicly available sources, and find a way to present them all in a way that enables others to check on their own. You can't depend everything on Wikipedia is correct, but you can challenge it, and the results of your individual efforts benefit everyone else as well.
@Dewyu Nohmi Nice explanation. Is there a name for the concept that what is "real" is that which the majority of people believe is real? It seems that's where we are right now.
@@finchbevdale2069 I am more interested in sensory knowledge (perception), as I am autistic and I want to do my masters thesis with that kind of theory. I dont know if I am able to do it tho, because the institutional barriers and the fact that I have to do all of it alone because I wont get an advisor that can help me with it. I am reading Fear of Knowledge by Paul A. Boghossian at the moment. Do you know this book?
The speaker dropped the ball big time the moment he claimed "Facts are socially constructed". At this point he stopped instructing and started preaching. Facts are not socially constructed. The sky being blue is a fact (when it's a sunny day out). He goes one step beyond and conflates facts and fact interpretation. For his example of the three sticks and the X stick, the correct answer is "It doesn't matter what I think, I'll need to compare and measure the sticks to give an accurate answer". The X stick is only as tall as the B stick once I can confirm they are the same length, which I can't do it without measuring them. Until then, I don't have the fact. Once I measure and compare the sticks, and see that the X stick is as tall as the B stick, I can now confirm that fact. But regardless of if I know or not, the X stick and the B stick have the same height. That's the fact there. This feels like the biggest (and worse) ad populum defense I've ever heard.
I don’t see how you came to this conclusion. What he’s saying is our relationship with facts is socially constructed,not that the facts themselves are socially constructed. The facts are objectively true and represent objective reality however our biases and relationships with facts can be influenced by our social/subjective understanding,either individually or as part of a group. Hard for me to see it as preaching. He just didn’t make the distinction between the two abstractions for you. Interesting you saw it that way.
Jaltos listen to his next sentence and he explains the context of that statement, and he also prefaces the statement that “facts are socially constructed” with the sentence “an interesting aspect about facts” which contextualizes his view. yes if you take it out of context it’s incorrect,but within the context of his argument it makes perfect sense
But reality (and by extension facts) are socially constructed. It doesn't mean they're fictional or made up, nor does it mean they don't have an objective reality outside our perception. What it means is that objective reality can only be perceived by us in terms we as humans and societies have constructed. Whether this speaker adequately explains it or not, I don't know. But I'm addressing your specific argument that facts are not socially constructed. To use your own example, the sky is blue, but "blue" is the word we've given to a particular reflections of light when visually perceived. And, indeed, we only know it's blue because everyone else seems to perceive it as blue and gives it that designation. Again, that doesn't mean it's *not* blue. It means that the category *blue*, what we perceive as blue, is a designation that was at one point in time socially construct. I hope that clears it up a bit. But, for the record, I don't think his stick example is a very good way of getting his point across.
Thanks for pointing this out, I did not see it that way.. After he said “facts are socially constructed” I leaned toward his following statement for context, “meaning that the way we see reality is only partially influenced by objective truth.” I believe he wanted to point out that what we interpret to be factual can be influenced by conformity. Which is something we should watch out for when labeling something as fact. Especially when gathering “facts” from untrustworthy sources online.
Who decides what measurement is correct? What if the measurement is something that can't be made by a ruler? The problem with the idea that "Scientists take a ruler and make the measurement" is that you can agree on what units of measurement to use and then measure physical properties. However, humans often deal in non-physical properties: conceptions about how society works, for example. Those don't have agreed-upon units of measurement and often differ significantly. How do we behave in physical marketplaces, for example? Behavior in a Japanese marketplace in Okinawa is very different from that of an American supermarket. Social scientists have a very different -- and more difficult -- problem than physical or biological scientists do. But to say that social scientists don't practice science -- even to insinuate that it might be true -- is a disservice to science as a way of knowing.
Truth is arbitrary. An infinite number of interpretations exist for any "fact" that all can be true. That's not to say there is no difference between deception and truth. The key distinction is betrayal.
This obliterates the existence of perception and the fact that, like all other animals, we perceive part of the reality and we cannot be completely mistaken by it, otherwise we would have already died. So the problem is that everything in the post-truth era is bound up to language rather than language and perception. Another problem is the ideologization of history...
When a scientist or statistician says statistics are facts, (s)he means done properly, not some sloppy model that doesn't follow all the rules. Being familiar with TED talks it should be clear that he didn't have time to vet the statistics (not to mention people would fall asleep). A serious scientist in any field is not likely to make statistics up to support a talk. Their colleagues find out they have been fast and loose with the numbers and their reputation could be seriously damaged. A Facebook post has none of those restrictions.
Also, when we speak of facts, I don't think we're saying that a ruler cannot claim to measure 20 cm, because it isn't a laser range finder, so the claim is a lie.
The bigger problem to me is that there are few objective measures of well being that we can agree with. For an investor, making 50,000 on his/her investments (your currency here) might be what we call "chump change" in the USA. But to me, making $50,000 is a living wage. Hurrah! Certainly GDP doesn't tell you much about the socio-economic strata in a society. Neither does unemployment. Of course a job is a job, but all jobs are not sufficient to provide a living wage. Unemployment could be zero and huge portions of your society may still need help. However, I think I understood why he used those measures. That is because they are reportable facts.
Massimo seemed quite sincere and his arguments rang true to me [clearly false ++++++++not sure+++++*+++objectively true]. I picked the * instead of "objectively true" because I didn't fact check him, i.e. I did not check his sources. I will most likely NOT check his sources and I don't intend to pursue a career as a social scientist.
I don't like the way it's worded in the video, but I think the point he is trying to make is that what some people are calling "facts" (i.e. alternative facts) are being socially constructed. Actual facts are true, but we don't always know the truth. As science progresses, often viewpoints change because we know more information. Statistical inference is very helpful, but the findings are only as good as the data and methods of collecting the data. Honestly, I didn't like hearing "statistics are facts" because of that reason. The statistics might show some finding that fits the theory, but if the methodology is not properly done, the findings are severely limited. There are always limitations and those are rarely ever discussed outside of the scientific community. There is a problem in science that the only findings people are interested in are when the analysis "found something". Null findings are rarely published, so let's say 50 studies found nothing, but 1 found something and was published. It makes that 1 study seem pretty factual to the average person and with a media spin and confirmation bias, it turns into a socially constructed "fact".
another thing that i find really important.
Is that some also like to forget the context around a fact (ex by generalising) and that can transform something that would be a fact to a statement without proof.
ex: imagine a have a ruler that mesure 20cm.
i could say: "a ruler is 20 cm"
that would be a generalisation (a easily disprovable one at that)
or: "this ruler is 20cm" this one is better but could be disproven by measuring with enough precision.
or: "this ruler claim to mesure 20cm" now that's a fact.
That why it's important to cite the study that have taken the mesure. And clearly state that it's what "They" have taken.
Because every studies has some amount of bias and inaccuracies.
That even why citing multiple trully independent sources is important in science.
I think we also live in a post trust era. It seems to be there is so much data and so many unstated motives that even when people see various viewpoints and question the motives of those that provide them
this aged well, didn't it?
Good talk, but there is an important non sequitur. From the fact that people form their beliefs based mainly on the opinions of others does no follow that facts - objetive reality - are socialy constructed, but just that beliefs are socialy influenced. Facts - that which makes opinions true or false - are objetive, even though some facts might be institutional (in Searle's sense of institution).
Sorry, but your premise has a problem - subjectivity is inherent in our thinking. This why our circles of trust correlate with our social circles, and social factors are more determinative of what we define as objective facts. But, as the phenomenon known as Chinese Whispers shows, who and how information is transmitted can distort and even change it. So, to claim that social media can be a trusted medium is false. As users, we have no quality control over the information presented to us in that medium. Thus, being sceptical of anything is a basic requirement. As someone wiser than myself said, "if you fall for everything, what can you stand up for?" And has been shown, those with the money to do so are spending it on manipulating and manufacturing consent for political policies by leveraging social media. It might be an urban legend, but the idea that Silicon Valley CEOs would not allow their children to use social media is telling.
I don't agree in many statements Massimo proposed, I believe that social constructivism is an ideological oversimplification of the world, social interactions and biology(if even taken in account).
I'm no prfessional, but I would advice myself and others to research more about the topic.
No I just watch Ted talks and immediately take action in my life based on them 🙄
The speaker seems like a very intelligent and well meaning person. It's hard though to imagine the majority of readers or receivers of information actually going to the work of fact checking what they read (if they read at all). It's just too much work and too time consuming and probably in many cases inconclusive. There still is a place for publications that are responsible for what they print or broadcast. The solution to the spread of fake news cannot fall on the shoulders of the individual.
Post truth is only possible when the price of deceit is not death.
Wtf no.
I have to object to terminology here. Facts are not socially constructed more than truth. If a fact is not true, it's not a fact.
Of course - you might say that "facts" are only our current best understanding of truth. ... but still. People can't just go around and invent their own facts.
Yet entire political parties in some nation consist of almost nothing but ex nihilo "facts" that have no origin in reality.
Just because something is socially construct doesn't mean it's not true.
@@shamanking19042000 Be sceptical of all things that claim to be facts. In fact, define what you mean by the term fact. We have too many opinions that are not based on information that has been tested. Democratising knowledge creation needs quality control because, crowds aren't always wise. We have so many emperors walking about in their "new clothes" and too few children laughing at their nakedness.
@@shamanking19042000 True, but the converse is just as true.
@@BigHenFor if you're stalking about how objectivity is a myth. I agree.
Its the Salem With-craft Trails 😢
What do you do when people are not interested in engaging in a conversation?
Dictatorship is the answer
9:38 "Take vaccination..." VERY pertinent re. today's Covid vaccine hesitancy.
iF ONLY FOLKS WOULD SPEND THE TIME TO CHECK AND CROSS CHECK 'INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM WHATEVER SOURCE, THEY MAY EVEN GET GET CLOSE TO FOLLOWING/FINDING objective truth.. With what I have come to learn I am glad I am no longer a youngster.
@@truthseeker7242 shhhhh
yes take it even if it will have no effect aother than negative for you cus youre not over 40-50! keep filling pheizers pockets, support big pharma!
i thought leftists hated corporations and big business/big pharma, but I guess as long as what right-wingers think, you need to support the opposite no matter the facts
Wikipedia does fairly well, at least it enables divergent voices to argue out publicly available sources, and find a way to present them all in a way that enables others to check on their own. You can't depend everything on Wikipedia is correct, but you can challenge it, and the results of your individual efforts benefit everyone else as well.
lol, suuure.
can i have some of your copium as well
So ultimately this is an ideology of power, i.e., get enough power at any cost so you can create/control the narrative? Am I wrong?
Yes, except it's not an ideology.
This talk is very inspiring, but the comments are totally demoralizing.
Vive la ECS1
so, in the same breath he says that they are both socially constructed and only partially true?
@Dewyu Nohmi Nice explanation. Is there a name for the concept that what is "real" is that which the majority of people believe is real? It seems that's where we are right now.
@@finchbevdale2069 I am more interested in sensory knowledge (perception), as I am autistic and I want to do my masters thesis with that kind of theory. I dont know if I am able to do it tho, because the institutional barriers and the fact that I have to do all of it alone because I wont get an advisor that can help me with it. I am reading Fear of Knowledge by Paul A. Boghossian at the moment. Do you know this book?
The speaker dropped the ball big time the moment he claimed "Facts are socially constructed". At this point he stopped instructing and started preaching.
Facts are not socially constructed. The sky being blue is a fact (when it's a sunny day out). He goes one step beyond and conflates facts and fact interpretation.
For his example of the three sticks and the X stick, the correct answer is "It doesn't matter what I think, I'll need to compare and measure the sticks to give an accurate answer". The X stick is only as tall as the B stick once I can confirm they are the same length, which I can't do it without measuring them. Until then, I don't have the fact. Once I measure and compare the sticks, and see that the X stick is as tall as the B stick, I can now confirm that fact. But regardless of if I know or not, the X stick and the B stick have the same height. That's the fact there.
This feels like the biggest (and worse) ad populum defense I've ever heard.
I don’t see how you came to this conclusion. What he’s saying is our relationship with facts is socially constructed,not that the facts themselves are socially constructed. The facts are objectively true and represent objective reality however our biases and relationships with facts can be influenced by our social/subjective understanding,either individually or as part of a group. Hard for me to see it as preaching. He just didn’t make the distinction between the two abstractions for you. Interesting you saw it that way.
@@MetalBassist1000 6:03 "Facts are socially constructed".
Jaltos listen to his next sentence and he explains the context of that statement, and he also prefaces the statement that “facts are socially constructed” with the sentence “an interesting aspect about facts” which contextualizes his view. yes if you take it out of context it’s incorrect,but within the context of his argument it makes perfect sense
But reality (and by extension facts) are socially constructed. It doesn't mean they're fictional or made up, nor does it mean they don't have an objective reality outside our perception. What it means is that objective reality can only be perceived by us in terms we as humans and societies have constructed. Whether this speaker adequately explains it or not, I don't know. But I'm addressing your specific argument that facts are not socially constructed.
To use your own example, the sky is blue, but "blue" is the word we've given to a particular reflections of light when visually perceived. And, indeed, we only know it's blue because everyone else seems to perceive it as blue and gives it that designation. Again, that doesn't mean it's *not* blue. It means that the category *blue*, what we perceive as blue, is a designation that was at one point in time socially construct.
I hope that clears it up a bit. But, for the record, I don't think his stick example is a very good way of getting his point across.
Thanks for pointing this out, I did not see it that way.. After he said “facts are socially constructed” I leaned toward his following statement for context, “meaning that the way we see reality is only partially influenced by objective truth.” I believe he wanted to point out that what we interpret to be factual can be influenced by conformity. Which is something we should watch out for when labeling something as fact. Especially when gathering “facts” from untrustworthy sources online.
He's so cute.
That's a biased perspective. Fie on you.
This is a question humanists spend too much time arguing about. Scientists take a ruler and make the measurement...
Who decides what measurement is correct? What if the measurement is something that can't be made by a ruler?
The problem with the idea that "Scientists take a ruler and make the measurement" is that you can agree on what units of measurement to use and then measure physical properties. However, humans often deal in non-physical properties: conceptions about how society works, for example. Those don't have agreed-upon units of measurement and often differ significantly. How do we behave in physical marketplaces, for example? Behavior in a Japanese marketplace in Okinawa is very different from that of an American supermarket.
Social scientists have a very different -- and more difficult -- problem than physical or biological scientists do. But to say that social scientists don't practice science -- even to insinuate that it might be true -- is a disservice to science as a way of knowing.
Did you even listen bro?
You're a social scientist and you think statistics are facts? That's a new one. I'm pleasantly surprised
Data = FACTS
Facts are social constructs
Postmodernism
Post-Postmodernism actually
Pretty good :)
Truth is arbitrary. An infinite number of interpretations exist for any "fact" that all can be true. That's not to say there is no difference between deception and truth. The key distinction is betrayal.
This obliterates the existence of perception and the fact that, like all other animals, we perceive part of the reality and we cannot be completely mistaken by it, otherwise we would have already died. So the problem is that everything in the post-truth era is bound up to language rather than language and perception. Another problem is the ideologization of history...
By that line of thinking, "The sky is blue" is an opinion.
@@stellario82 You mean history as an "idol" so to speak?
@@caballero3601 More like: history is a "narrative" wherein you can make up your story as you like it....
You read way too much Foucault......time to get back to reality where some "truths" are more valuable than others