Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, oversight, Administrators
2,260
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: +
→Sokal
:::::yes Social text was a leading journal. the peer-reviewing seems to be besides the point: the humanities editor published a science article that was utter nonsense. As far as he was concerned, it met his criteria and truth evidently was not one of the criteria. Postmodernism does NOT thrive in science--in good part because of the Sokal affair. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:21, 3 November 2009 (EST)
:::::yes Social text was a leading journal. the peer-reviewing seems to be besides the point: the humanities editor published a science article that was utter nonsense. As far as he was concerned, it met his criteria and truth evidently was not one of the criteria. Postmodernism does NOT thrive in science--in good part because of the Sokal affair. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:21, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::::::I never said it thrived in science, perhaps one of the few fields where it has not caught on in any major way. Science relies on the idea of objectivity, the idea that there is a real world existing independent of human experience. Postmodernism has often questioned this view and indeed the idea that objectivity is anything other than an unattainable ideal. Science, as Karl Popper, hailed by many as the greatest philosopher of science, admits, acceptance of the scientific method relies upon the belief that objectivity is possible. The debate 'between' post-modernists and scientists is often one where people end up talking past each other. For one thing you will find few in the former group who would deny the value of the scientific method, an accusation which is often thrown their way. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:29, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::::::I never said it thrived in science, perhaps one of the few fields where it has not caught on in any major way. Science relies on the idea of objectivity, the idea that there is a real world existing independent of human experience. Postmodernism has often questioned this view and indeed the idea that objectivity is anything other than an unattainable ideal. Science, as Karl Popper, hailed by many as the greatest philosopher of science, admits, acceptance of the scientific method relies upon the belief that objectivity is possible. The debate 'between' post-modernists and scientists is often one where people end up talking past each other. For one thing you will find few in the former group who would deny the value of the scientific method, an accusation which is often thrown their way. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:29, 3 November 2009 (EST)
:::::::Having read Sokal's paper and the book he wrote regarding postmodern gibberish (Intelletual Impostures), (and a bunch about the movement in general) I think it's fair to say that they are ''not'' talking past each other. Science is perhaps the greatest achievement of our civilization (on par with modern free-market democracy?) It is based on evidence and rigorous testing. Postmodern works contain mostly incomprehensible gibberish, are designed to be incomprehensible, abuse scientific terminology, offer no evidence, no proofs, no disproofs, and essentially exist only to foster the careers of leftist intellectuals who have nothing to say or add. Sokal proved that they know this to be true; anything will be published if it's sufficiently obscurantist and filled with terms like "privilege", "hermeneutic", and "hegemony." Ever read Derrida? It's unmitigated drivel. The insights he offers could be phrased lucidly in a fraction the space, but that wouldn't have given him a star career. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:04, 4 November 2009 (EST)