This is true in the sense that science, or even more broadly the process of categorizing things, is done in a social context. Meaning that no one individual decides what any one thing is on the whole, rather it's done collectively.

However, I'm confused as to the point of this point. Technically, we collectively classified and decided that we are all existing on a giant rock with certain properties, and we called it earth. You can do this for literally anything because of how humans communicate, and because of how knowledge is generated.

But in what sense does it mean that it is a social classification? Isn't it much more accurate to say that things like Earth, or sex, exist independent of social classification, and that the terms themselves are things that are social constructions so that we can talk about and refer to something that exists out there in material reality?

I had this discussion with my evolution professor in school, who suggested to me that where we draw lines between species is a social construction. And my response was basically "well yeah. Humans categorize things in order to understand them. But it's not completely arbitrary, it's based on observations of reality that are independent of human thought. There is a difference between a lion and a tiger, regardless of what we call them or where we decide to draw the line, right?"

Edit: missed a word

Edit 2: I see that you responded to the other commenter while I was typing my questions out, so I want to be more specific here because this is always where I get stuck when going through this discussion. You made the same point in another comment thread above and seem very familiar with the topic, so I'd love to hear more from you. I majored in biology and minored in philosophy, so I am constantly torn on these types of points.

It seems we agree that there is an independent reality outside of human observation, and that the categorization or classification as such is the part that is a social classification (construction I think is also commonly used.)

Is this only to point out the fact that boundaries drawn and characteristics chosen in these distinctions are human-created (aka socially constructed?) Because this seems fairly self-evident, but I don't know what work it does. If an independent reality exists, and human understanding is dependent on categorization, and we do have some level of access to that independent reality, then aren't we progressively attempting to describe something that we are not creating, just observing? That is, we are continuously updating our understanding of an independent reality which has characteristics, can be known to us, and requires labeling in order for us to communicate about it?

Please feel free to DM me if you'd rather continue there, but I had this conversation A LOT during my undergrad and never got satisfying answers for it. Thanks ahead of time.