Taxonomy flame doesn't really bother me because it's inherently an exercise in line-drawing, and as sciences and allied fields go, it's at least much more aware of its own contributions to the structuring/production of its own truth/knowledge. In that way, it's probably a happy medium:

The humanities are very aware of their own production of their 'knowledge,' but that knowledge is often built on stilts and has very little empirical or material reality.*

The sciences do access empirical and material reality, but they're willfully blind (at least in their public faces) to their own role in knowledge production.

*By which I mean--it is of course the case that 'gravity' as a concept is a system of observations, theories, and mathematical arguments which together form the thought-object of 'gravity.' So in that case 'gravity' is a social construct. But nobody, even the most perverse postmoderns, would tell you with a straight face that if they're holding an object and let it go, they don't expect it to fall to the ground every time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668485&forum_id=2#48580961)

Yeah Foucault is good at picking apart stuff like that like zoological taxonomy or modern “mental disorder” classifications, although he can come across as a little too French and poetic but I have to admit the tone actually gets addictive after a while and it has a flamey provocateur quality to it that makes it fun to use on people.

I feel like gravity is different because it isn’t as culturally constructed as classification systems. It seems more survival constructed like it’s useful to understand how objects fall at earth scale simply for our survival. The part that gets flamey is when scientists dont continue to ask philosphical questions to expand our understanding of it. Like at the planetary scale they will say space time curvature causes planetary orbits but it’s like wait — but how? And why? What even makes the objects attracted to begin with that causes them to fall around each other through warped space and time?

It doesn’t explain the following :

Why do massive objects warp spacetime in the first place? GR just assumes mass-energy does this without explaining why it must.

Why do objects naturally “fall” along geodesics? Why should curvature translate into motion?

How does mass “communicate” its presence to spacetime? Does spacetime inherently “know” to warp around mass? There’s no intermediary mechanism akin to the electromagnetic field in Maxwell’s equations.

GR assumes that mass-energy has an intrinsic property: it deforms spacetime. This is just a postulate. There’s no explanation of why mass-energy does this—Einstein just starts there.

Curvature changes the “shape” of spacetime, meaning that the straightest possible path (geodesic) for an object in curved spacetime isn’t the same as it would be in flat spacetime.

But GR doesn’t explain why objects must follow these geodesics, other than saying, “This is how spacetime works.”

Even Newton at least describes Gravity as a force that pulls objects together but that seems to be dropped in GR entirely. There is no F in the Einstein equations but Scientists still call it a force anyway not even knowing if that’s what it is.

To me these problems aren’t even about Gravity being a construct they are straight up unsolved problems in philosphy of physics that get ignored now for being “too abstract”.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668485&forum_id=2#48581030)

https://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Tyranny-Postmodern-Corruption-Political/dp/0230114946

it's coming out soon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668485&forum_id=2#48581090)