Social constructs are real and they matter

[Borachio]

How does "cat" describe anything?

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Spoiler :

 

[Traitorfish]

But surely the sun is simply a material reality?

It is, insofar as there is an indisputable reality which we refer to by the name of "the sun". But it also a social construct, because we attach meanings to it which are not contained within that material reality. It can be both; these things are layered.

It. Doesn't. Matter. what you call them. HOWEVER you describe them, they would still be here. Nature itself doesn't give a damn what humans call its various parts, how its various parts are described, or even if there's anyone capable of such.

That's precisely the point. Nature doesn't need categories like "gravity" or "bird" or "sun"; stuff just happens. It's humans who need those categories, and humans who invent them. We sometimes to try to rationalise those categories to refer as clearly and as directly to the natural world as possible, and we call this "science", but there's always a distance between those categories and the material realities they describe.

edit: There's a bit in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather which gets at something similar to this, conveniently in reference to the sun. For context, Death has told his grand-daughter (it's complicated) that they have to save the titular character, the Hogfather, by Hogswatch Day or the sun would not rise.

Death: WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF YOU HADN'T SAVED HIM?
Susan: "Yes! The sun would have risen just the same, yes?"
Death: NO
Susan: "Oh, come on. You can't expect me to believe that. It's an astronomical fact."
Death: THE SUN WOULD NOT HAVE RISEN.
Sun: "Really? Then what would have happened, pray?"
Death: A MERE BALL OF FLAMING GAS WOULD HAVE ILLUMINATED THE WORLD.

"The sun", here, has meanings beyond the simple astronomical entity to which it refers, and while Pratchett is obviously getting at the more abstract symbolic and mythological meanings of "the sun", I think the basic point being made, the distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal thing, is relevant.

 

[warpus]

I think that just because things "don't really" have a beginning and an end, that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist outside of social constructs.

The atoms in the sun are having a bit of a party - they are bonding, and doing other things. They are not just randomly floating through space - there is a definite "thing" there, whether there is a clear edge to it or not.

 

[Farm Boy]

It is. And it also a social construct. It can be both; these things are layered.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think you're doing very well if you can explain gravity in no matter how many words.

Physicists can do a more or less good job talking about the various characteristics that gravity has.

But I think that's a long way from explaining it.

Explaining what is called gravity is spectacularly easy, because anyone I set out to explain it to will almost immediately recognize their own experience of it. Explaining things that the other person has no experience of is what is hard...and pointless.

 

[Borachio]

I jump up into the air, and fall back to Earth with a bump. Presumably because of the effects of gravity. Doesn't tell me how, or why, this thing works though. Only that it does. Or has done up to now.

Maybe, for you, a description counts as an explanation. It doesn't for me.

 

[warpus]

Potato up, potato down. Parabola.

 

[Borachio]

Absolutely. Perfect descriptions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I jump up into the air, and fall back to Earth with a bump. Presumably because of the effects of gravity. Doesn't tell me how, or why, this thing works though. Only that it does. Or has done up to now.

Maybe, for you, a description counts as an explanation. It doesn't for me.

Thing is that beyond your experience of it all the explaining/describing in the world makes no actual difference. Since it is beyond your experience of it I can tell you that it is all this math, or I can tell you that it is the volcano god's way of keeping us in place, and as long as the explanation is useful and consistent and you empower it with your agreement it will be okay for most situations.

I am usually fine with empowering either of those explanations with agreement, because for the vast majority of applications they are equally useful. I just make a point of keeping in mind that neither of those explanations, nor any other, is the thing itself.

 

[Senethro]

An important post.

A Gloriously Incandescent Post.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thank you!

 

[Domen]

This study (link below) found out that not only humans migrated out of Africa, but also that some back-migrations from Eurasia to Africa took place in ancient times (for example according to this study some African populations - like the Yoruba people of West Africa - also carry a trace of Neanderthal ancestry!):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7534/full/nature13997.html

More evidence that there are no clear-cut racial divisions. Most "blacks" have beeen "part white", and inversely (check: Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe).

=============================

Map showing Eurasian admixtures in Africans, with approximate dates of mixing (note that some admixtures are fairly recent - like 180 - 360 years ago; while some other admixtures are very ancient - like 5300 - 8100 years ago, or even 7500 - 10500 years ago - and this in Central Africa!):

SSA ancestry is ancestry from Sub-Saharan African farmers (mostly Bantu peoples, who were very expansive as we know).

HG ancestry is ancestry from Sub-Saharan African hunter-gatherers, who lived in much of Africa before Bantu peoples came.

An excerpt from this article:

Although Africa is the most genetically diverse region in the world, we provide evidence for relatively modest differentiation among populations representing the major sub-populations in SSA, consistent with recent population movement and expansion across the region beginning around 5,000 years ago—the Bantu expansion8. Although the history of the Bantu expansion is probably complex, assessments of population admixture can provide new insights. We note historically complex and regionally distinct admixture with multiple HG and Eurasian populations across SSA, including ancient HG and Eurasian ancestry in West and East Africa and more recent complex HG admixture in South Africa. As well as explaining genetic differentiation among modern populations in SSA, these admixture patterns provide genetic evidence for early back-to-Africa migrations, the possible existence of extant HG populations in western Africa—compatible with archaeological evidence15, and patterns of gene flow consistent with the Bantu expansion, including genetic assimilation of populations resident across the region.

Hunter-gatherer ancestry is most abundant in South Africa, where farmers (Bantu peoples in this case) came relatively late.

 

[Domen]

There is no any ancient Eurasian admixture in South Africa apparently (only recent admixtures from Boers and English settlers). Anyway it seems that Bantu expansion shaped most of Sub-Saharan Africa. They swallowed all less numerous populations of hunter-gatherers, which did not switch to farming on time. Pretty much the same happened in Europe (new genetic data suggests that Europeans are mostly descendants of Middle Eastern and "Russian" immigrants, rather than native hunter-gatherers - of course hunter-gatherer ancestry is also present, but was "absorbed" by more numerous farmers and animal herders). Those who did not switch to farming or animal breeding on time, remained low in numbers. Only farming and domesticating animals allows for high population density.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I conclude from this that Africa is a social construct.

 

[Domen]

Well, in fact Eurasia-Africa is one landmass, and the Americas is one landmass.

Perhaps only Australia and Antarctica can into true continents on their own.

 

[Domen]

Moderator Action: Please stick to the topic
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Spoiler :

And some data from this study:

The most "purely" African ethnic groups (percent of Eurasian ancestry from ca. 0,0 to 0,5%):

Eurasian admixture is calculated by three different methods, hence 3 results for each group:

Dinka - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00
Tswana - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00
Taa_East - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00
BiakaPygmy - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00
MbutiPygmy - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00
Wambo - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.05
Yoruba - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.06
Taa_West - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.07
Mbukushu - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.14
Zulu - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.21
Juhoan_South - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.23
BantuSouthAfrica - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.45
Kgalagadi - 0.00 / 0.45 / 0.00
Sotho - 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.48
Igbo - 0.00 / 0.48 / 0.02
Himba - 0.00 / 0.41 / 0.28
Hoan - 0.04 / 0.68 / 0.13
Ga-Adangbe - 0.15 / 0.72 / 0.44

And Sub-Saharan ethnic groups with the highest % of Eurasian admixture (ca. 5% to 50%):

Amhara - 47.82 / 49.73 / 54.70
Oromo - 43.62 / 45.39 / 50.82
Somali - 37.05 / 38.72 / 45.70
Nama - 12.93 / 13.87 / 14.41
Kikuyu - 12.91 / 13.89 / 13.34
Fula - 11.46 / 12.39 / 10.79
Kalenjin - 10.14 / 10.99 / 7.30
African Caribbeans in Barbados - 11.19 / 12.10 / 10.73
Americans of African ancestry in southwestern USA - 19.11 / 20.22 / 19.32
Banyarwanda - 8.86 / 9.72 / 9.07
Barundi - 5.68 / 6.46 / 5.93

So for example the Somali people are over 1/3 up to even 1/2 Eurasian. African-Americans are 1/5 Eurasian.

Amhara and Oromo people (both from Ethiopia) are about 1/2 Sub-Saharan and 1/2 Eurasian.

Let's note that this continuum is also farther north (for example Egyptians are about 14% - 20% Sub-Saharan).

Pharaohs looking like "Black people" occasionally popping up in a population which is partly "Black" is not improbable.

=========================

Data quoted above is is from Supplementary Table 4 (on page 5) here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7534/extref/nature13997-s2.pdf

The remainders are mostly between 0,5% and 5%.

 

[warpus]

You're addicted. Time for an intervention.. I'm calling TLC

 

[Domen]

Yes please!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, in fact Eurasia-Africa is one landmass, and the Americas is one landmass.

Perhaps only Australia and Antarctica can into true continents on their own.

You could say that all of Earth is one landmass, with some parts of it being so low that there is "always" water there (of course we know that's changed over the past few billions of years and is ongoing).

So how do people define continents? Some define them by what they see in an ordinary atlas, and others define them by using the maps of the various plates - and some continents are therefore not as connected as we ordinarily think of them as being.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If we're seriously going to start banding around concepts like "the sun is a social construct" then I think the whole concept of social constructs has pretty much jumped the shark. Or an arrangement of atoms that we socially refer to as a shark. Or what we refer to as an "arrangement" of what we label as "atoms" etc etc etc...