3 ms·
Well if "1+1=2" is a social construct then "there are planets, stars, and, in general, objects" is also a social construct. No kind of society can make 1+1=3, a
by jojobas 4y ago
Well if "1+1=2" is a social construct then "there are planets, stars, and, in general, objects" is also a social construct.
No kind of society can make 1+1=3, and also there is mathematical proof that 1+1=2 (built of course on some sort of axioms that somebody might also consider social constructs).
- prmph 4y agoImagine a universe, where, when you combine two apples (or really anything), you always, through some weird physical process, end up with three items. Would that invalidate (or not), the statement that 1 + 1 = 2?
- eesmith 4y agoWe know "planet" is a social construct because the astronomers decided, some years back, that Pluto wasn't a planet. And the rules they created to make that definition only apply in the Solar System, not to exoplanets around other stars nor to rogue/free-floating planets. And Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta were considered planets for over half a century.
- jojobas 4y agoIn order to decide whether Pluto is a planet, one has to assume that there are, in fact, planets. This assumption is not social in nature, it's language describing natural, inarguable phenomena.
- eesmith 4y agoDoes "marriage" exist, as a "natural, inarguable phenomena" independent of its social construct? What about "US citizen"? I don't think so. Which means we can't say the existence of a word means its the result of a physical assumption. When you wrote "planets, stars", did you not assume those two are different? But originally, "planet" meant "wandering star" - a planet was assumed to be a type of star.