>>100936426>all of them are interpretations of a fundamentally unfalsifiable social construct and so is any interpretation of it. Bringing up falsifiability in the realm of language is absurdly ignorant to the purpose of language. 'Dogs' as a category doesn't exist in nature. We categorize related patterns into biological hierarchies because it helps us communicate the idea of a dog, which we then incorporate into everyday conversations, decision and research.
You can't falsify what a dog is, because the category of dog insists upon itself.
>The concept itself, the social construct, is something that others can reject entirely, similar to how some people don't believe in justice (another social construct) at allYou can reject any concept, but if you want to prove that your opinion is valuable, you should at the very least give a reason as to why you reject something based on its utility or rather, the lack thereof.
