Joseph: >> Do you think gravitation is a "social construction"? If yes, does that mean >> one could avoid it by having an alternate social construction?...
raghu: > ... Of course gravitation is a social construction. (Is > gravitation an attractive force between masses, or it is a curvature > of space-time, or is it an interaction between gravitons and other > particles, or is it ... ?) Any description of a natural phenomenon is > by definition a social construction. Saying something is a "social > construction" is not in any way tantamount to saying that that thing > is "not real".... There's a big difference between a description of gravity and gravity itself. So the statement should be that the description or perception or understanding or theory of gravity is a social construction, while gravity itself is not. Gravity affects rocks, which (as far as I know) have no society and therefore cannot have social constructions or constructs. I see a PC screen in front of me. My perception of that screen differs from the objective reality (even if the PC screen is objectively not there). It's true that my perception can affect the behavior of subatomic particles (according to quantum physics) or society (the participant-observer problem) but my perception does not affect the PC screen unless I put my perceptions and conceptions into action (e.g., shooting my screen, as the sainted Elvis did to his TV). -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
