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?
I don't understand the question.
I'm afraid I haven't properly designed the Muggles Studies course I introduced at my local Harry Potter fan club. Last Sunday we finally had our second class (after wasted months of insistence and delays), and I introduced some very basic descriptions of common biases, while of course emphasizing the need to detect them in ourselves before trying to detect them in other people. At some point, which I didn't completely notice, the discussion changed from an explanation of the attribution bias into a series of multicultural examples in favor of moral relativity. I honestly don't know how that happened, but as more and more attendants voiced their comments, I started to fear someone would irreversibly damage the lessons I was trying to teach. They basically stopped short of calling the scientific method a cultural construct, at which point I'm sure I would have snapped. I don't know what to make of this. Some part of me tries to encourage me and make me put more effort into showing these people the need for more reductionism in their worldview, but another part of me just wants to give them up as hopeless postmodernists. What should I do?