Scientific constructivism
ie if i tell you “we all know that the earth revolves around the sun”
or: “vaccines decrease the chances of catching COVID”
how can we call that ‘correct’?
does the earth really revolve around the sun?
How could I justify that belief?
Pretty much all STS scholars subscribe to constructivism, but not all subscribe to realism
Going to go over each of these in a bit more detail
standard view: we observe reality and describe it
bring up bias as an inherently realist term
constructing objects: lab rats, subatomic particles (Higgs boson), astronomical images
science shaping social:
chromasomal/hormone definitions of gender, cutoffs for healthy/unhealty levels on medical tests, phsychological diagnoses, healthy/unhealthy levels of exposure to toxins (expertise!)
Phenomena (in philosopyy): things that humans experience through senses.
Empiricism doesn't necessarily refute the existence of a 'true' reality, it just refutes the relevance of a 'true' reality.
Late 16th century
early 17th century: Galileo Galilei argues for Copernican model by pitting it against Ptolemy’s geocentric model
Today we believe: both are wrong
strong programme and standpoint theory fit nicely into nominalism