Jump to content

Talk:Social constructionism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Communication Theory

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2025 and 10 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nateiac7 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Julia.kennedy2004 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and Roles readability

[edit]

This section could really use a proofreading pass. There's quite a few grammar errors, especially in the first paragraph. "Martin talks about intersectionality and how the term was created to gender is a social construction that is influenced by social factors and experiences." I'm not sure how to correct this sentence as I suspect that words may be missing. The flow and readability of the section is maybe subjective, but in my opinion it isn't up to the standard of the rest of the article. I don't want to unilaterally rewrite the whole section, at least not without a round of drafting and feedback. ~2026-19084-3 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

undue weight to a criticism?

[edit]

I request input on whether this paragraph of published criticisms by academics (mostly scientists)

Both scientists and philosophers[1] have fiercely criticized the constructionist characterization of scientific knowledge and the assertion that the history of science should be written without regard to whether the scientific theories involved were actually correct.[2] This conflict - later known as the science wars - was escalated by the book Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science[3][4] by the biologist Paul R. Gross and the mathematician Norman Levitt (1943-2009). The term "science wars" was coined for a special 1996 issue of the journal Social Text that featured multiple articles on the social construction of scientific knowledge.[5] The physics professor Alan Sokal submitted an article to the issue deliberately written to be incomprehensible but including phrases and jargon typical of the articles published by the journal. The submission, which was published, was an experiment to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[6]In 1999, Sokal, with coauthor Jean Bricmont published the book Fashionable Nonsense, which criticized postmodernism and social constructionism.

(included in the Criticisms section at the very end of this article) gives "undue weight" to a critical point-of-view.

User:Generalrelative has reverted this paragraph. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My own objection to this body of writing is that it commits a very obvious logical fallacy by lumping anyone who believes that social construction is an ineluctable feature of our world (essentially, everyone who's given two seconds' honest thought to concepts like "marriage", "law", and "money") with those who advocate for the position that the Edinburgh "Strong Programme" should somehow replace internal accounts of scientific progress. They then attack this straw man as a proxy for "the left".
Now, I recognize that these are published sources, but they are essentially acting here as WP:PARTISAN, WP:PRIMARY sources, and need to be treated as such. My view is that the current version of the article already does a decent job of covering most of this material already (for instance, Alan Sokal's Social Text stunt is already substantively discussed in the article, as are some of his subsequent interventions in the debate, so KJ's implication that I reverted to exclude this information is misleading), and that any improvements need to be sourced to nonpartisan WP:SECONDARY sources.
Btw: one of the sources below, Jan Golinski's Making Natural Knowledge looks like a perfectly acceptable source for these purposes. But it needs to be summarized with WP:PROPORTION and appropriate encyclopedic WP:VOICE.
Generalrelative (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PARTISAN says that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral" which, obviously, is true of the philosopher of science Larry Laudan, the biologist Paul R. Gross and the mathematician Norman Levitt. None of them are neutral about social constructionism. They are, in fact, pointed critics (from outside of sociology) of social constructionism (at least as its ideas have been applied to understanding science). But that's why I put them in the article's Criticisms section. Because that's, presumably, where they belong.

You are objecting to the content of Laudan's, Gross's and Levitt's views but characterizing your objection as about policy. To turn that policy argument around on you, I would characterize your deletion of these criticisms as itself a WP:NPOV violation. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to feel that way. To be clear, my personal opinion is that Laudan, Gross and Levitt are making a silly argument (at least as silly as the people they wish to criticize). My policy-based objection to your edit is that their views may be due for inclusion but will need to conform to policies like WP:VOICE in order to avoid granting them WP:UNDUE emphasis. This is best done by consulting nonpartisan WP:SECONDARY sources and following their lead.
If you and I can't agree here, that's okay (and normal). Matters like this, where editors disagree about contentious topics, are best settled by wider community engagement. If you'd like, we can post a neutrally worded message at WP:NPOVN to solicit input from uninvolved parties. It could well be that the community agrees with you and not me, and I will be fine with that. Generalrelative (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have never posted to (or ever visited) Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard before (I have only been an editor for 6 months). Would the original comment I made here be appropriate to post there? Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good question. The only issue is that your original comment omits the text your edit replaced. Something like this would work:
Kirsten Jørgensdatter recently made this edit to Social constructionism:
Replacing:

In 1996, to illustrate what he believed to be the intellectual weaknesses of social constructionism and postmodernism, physics professor Alan Sokal submitted an article to the academic journal Social Text deliberately written to be incomprehensible but including phrases and jargon typical of the articles published by the journal. The submission, which was published, was an experiment to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[7][8] In 1999, Sokal, with coauthor Jean Bricmont published the book Fashionable Nonsense, which criticized postmodernism and social constructionism.

With:

Both scientists and philosophers[9] have fiercely criticized the constructionist characterization of scientific knowledge and the assertion that the history of science should be written without regard to whether the scientific theories involved were actually correct.[10] This conflict - later known as the science wars - was escalated by the book Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science[11][12] by the biologist Paul R. Gross and the mathematician Norman Levitt (1943-2009). The term "science wars" was coined for a special 1996 issue of the journal Social Text that featured multiple articles on the social construction of scientific knowledge.[13] The physics professor Alan Sokal submitted an article to the issue deliberately written to be incomprehensible but including phrases and jargon typical of the articles published by the journal. The submission, which was published, was an experiment to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[14][8] In 1999, Sokal, with coauthor Jean Bricmont published the book Fashionable Nonsense, which criticized postmodernism and social constructionism.

Generalrelative reverted, citing WP:VOICE and WP:DUE weight, and suggesting that coverage be guided by nonpartisan WP:SECONDARY sources.
The discussion is here. Having been unable to reach an agreement, we are soliciting wider community engagement.
Generalrelative (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will post. Thank you. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I came from NPOV/N. So for a concrete example of a problem with your includex text you use a singular citation to a singular paper about philosophy of science to suggest this critique is widespread among scientists and philosophers. And this does add extra weight to a situation considered by many philosophers to be an intellectually dishonest stunt (Sokal) and its predecessor arguments. I think the use of the critique needs to be much more specific and more carefully attributed than what you produced. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One thing from Sokal's original hoax text that is germane here is the part where he claims that quantum gravity is a social construct. That's the only part of the whole affair that explicitly ties it to the topic of this article. We should be focusing on that aspect first and foremost. Beyond that, our coverage of Sokal should perhaps include criticism of him too (as Simon points out, he's received plenty), in due proportion to the way it's covered in nonpartisan secondary sources. Generalrelative (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "singular citation to a singular paper about philosophy of science to suggest this critique is widespread among scientists and philosophers. And this does add extra weight to a situation considered by many philosophers to be an intellectually dishonest stunt"
Beyond the philosopher of science Larry Laudan, the biologist Paul R. Gross and the mathematician Norman Levitt (and, of course, Sokal himself) who are already cited, here are a bunch of other scientists and philosophers who are deeply critical of social constructionism:
1. The philosopher John Searles
2. The philosopher Paul_Boghossian
3. The physicist Steven Weinberg
4. The biologist Richard_Dawkins
I could add more names but is that really necessary? This criticism is widespread among scientists and philosophers. Would reposting the orginal edit but this time with 5 or 10 (or 15 or 20?) citations address the complaint that this is somehow some weird fringe idea? It's the opposite of that. I think (outside of sociology), it's more like the mainstream view of social constructionism. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
John Searle was literally one of the most prominent proponents of social constructionism. The problem with your framing is that you seem to interpret any acknowledgement of limitations to the social construction of reality as a refutation of social constructionism writ large. This fundamentally misconstrues the issue. Searle was indeed a critic of radical social constructionism, which denies the existence of what he terms "brute facts", but this is and always has been a minority position within social constructionism.
The essential tenets of social constructionism are precisely what is argued in Searle's book The Construction of Social Reality:
1) Lots of important features of our world are social constructs as opposed to natural kinds, and
2) The question of how to conceive of the truth value of these social constructs (X is against the law; Y is married to Z) vis-a-vis scientific or mathematical truths is an interesting and unresolved philosophical matter.
Some in the history and sociology of science have gone so far to suggest that we should bracket the truth value of scientific propositions in order to study scientific culture from a more value-neutral ground, but even this "Strong Programme" didn't actually deny the existence of objective truth.
Sure, there have existed some silly people who have claimed "there is no such thing as truth", and a few have held research positions at universities; a few have even self-identified as "social constructionists" –– but their errors need not be ours. Nor those of the unhinged critics who mistake these parts for the whole. Generalrelative (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do (non-silly) social constructionists believe/acknowledge that scientific knowledge is discovered and, if they do, can you point to an example? Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, of course they do. Every sociologist who publishes their findings will agree that they have discovered something. No one is confused about this. The same way any physicist who takes a moment to reflect will agree that their units of measurement (grams, meters, seconds) and cognitive tools (base-ten numerals) are social constructs. No one thinks that just because grams and meters are conventions I can be any height and weight I want. Both the sociologist and the physicist understand, if they take a moment to reflect, that there is something unsettled and mysterious about how these two aspects of knowledge-generation (convention and discovery) interact. That's why it is a live philosophical question. And you don't have to take my word for it; Einstein thought so too.
Over on NPOVN, you said One of us is confused about what social constructionism actually is. It may be me - I am not a sociologist - but I am waiting to here back on that question. I am not a sociologist either. I am a historian of science. We don't speak from personal or professional authority here on Wikipedia, so that should be irrelevant, but it may add context to our disagreement. Simonm223 has given you a very thoughtful breakdown of Lynn 2016. I think the key point is stated there with some clarity: the problem is not with the larger project of social constructivism but rather its "indiscriminate" application, by some, within the field of science and technology studies. This is not to say that all applications of constructivism within science studies have been misguided –– indeed, some build upon the conventionalism of Einstein and Duhem in a nuanced and informed way. But sure, some folks have been silly, on both sides of the debate, which is why the matter devolved into a "war" in the first place.
Finally, I will offer a source of my own. If you want to get more acquainted with this set of questions, I can think of no better text than Ian Hacking's The Social Construction of What? There is a PDF available here. Of particular relevance to you will be his ongoing and explicit engagement with the concept of "discovery".
Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My education is in philosophy and sociology and I'm well-versed in post-structuralists and in the sociological movements that have ties to them so I'm happy to lend a hand with more source review if needed. As I have mentioned before the problem isn't the sources. Aside from that blog (which I'm not sure the provenance of but which should be excluded) the sources involved in the affected appear perfectly reliable. However we must avoid over-simplifying the dispute and especially in repeating Sokal and Lindsay's mistakes of constructing a straw-man for demolition. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Laudan, Larry (1990). Science and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226469492. ...the displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is - second only to American political campaigns - the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time
  2. ^ Golinski, Jan (2005) [1998]. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226302324. David Bloor and Barry Barnes, at the University of Edinburgh...articulated what they called the "Strong Programme" in the sociology of science in the 1970s. This program, with its founding proposition that science should be studied like other aspects of human culture, without regard to its supposed truth or falsity, was controversial among philosophers and many historians.
  3. ^ Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman (1997). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8018-5707-2. Retrieved 2026-04-30. To put it bluntly, the academic left dislikes science ... Within the academic left, hostility extends to the social structures through which science is institutionalized, to the system of education by which professional scientists are produced, and to a mentality that is taken, rightly or wrongly, as characteristic of scientists. Most surprisingly, there is open hostility toward the actual content of scientific knowledge and toward the assumption, which one might have supposed universal among educated people, that scientific knowledge is reasonably reliable and rests on a sound methodology.
  4. ^ Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman (1997). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-8018-5707-2. Retrieved 2026-04-30. A curious fact about the recent left-critique of science is the degree to which its instigators have overcome their former timidity of indifference towards the subject not by studying it in detail, but rather by creating a repertoire of rationalizations for avoiding such study. Buoyed by a "stance" on science, they feel justified in bypassing the grubby necessities of actual scientific knowledge.
  5. ^ Ross, Andrew, ed. (1996). "Science Wars (Special Issue)". Social Text (46/47). Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-1881-1.
  6. ^ Sokal, Alan D. (May 1996). "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies". Lingua Franca. Retrieved 3 April 2007.
  7. ^ Sokal, Alan D. (May 1996). "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies". Lingua Franca. Retrieved 3 April 2007.
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Sokal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Laudan, Larry (1990). Science and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226469492. ...the displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is - second only to American political campaigns - the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time
  10. ^ Golinski, Jan (2005) [1998]. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226302324. David Bloor and Barry Barnes, at the University of Edinburgh...articulated what they called the "Strong Programme" in the sociology of science in the 1970s. This program, with its founding proposition that science should be studied like other aspects of human culture, without regard to its supposed truth or falsity, was controversial among philosophers and many historians.
  11. ^ Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman (1997). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8018-5707-2. Retrieved 2026-04-30. To put it bluntly, the academic left dislikes science ... Within the academic left, hostility extends to the social structures through which science is institutionalized, to the system of education by which professional scientists are produced, and to a mentality that is taken, rightly or wrongly, as characteristic of scientists. Most surprisingly, there is open hostility toward the actual content of scientific knowledge and toward the assumption, which one might have supposed universal among educated people, that scientific knowledge is reasonably reliable and rests on a sound methodology.
  12. ^ Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman (1997). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-8018-5707-2. Retrieved 2026-04-30. A curious fact about the recent left-critique of science is the degree to which its instigators have overcome their former timidity of indifference towards the subject not by studying it in detail, but rather by creating a repertoire of rationalizations for avoiding such study. Buoyed by a "stance" on science, they feel justified in bypassing the grubby necessities of actual scientific knowledge.
  13. ^ Ross, Andrew, ed. (1996). "Science Wars (Special Issue)". Social Text (46/47). Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-1881-1.
  14. ^ Sokal, Alan D. (May 1996). "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies". Lingua Franca. Retrieved 3 April 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_constructionism&oldid=1353652324"