209
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + + +
→Sokal
::::::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)
:::::::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)
I can't and won't disagree with you about the importance of science and its achievements. However, to simply put postmodernism side-by-side with science and compare the two is completely missing the point. Science is marked out amongst the many ways of viewing the world in that in demands evidence and falsifiability. To criticise postmodernism for lacking this is to criticise it whilst imagining that it's supposed to be doing something that it never set out to do. Theories abound outside of science to try and explain a huge variety of things that science can't, those aspects of our existence that cannot be subjected to empirical testing. These theories, along with science, provide different ways of looking at the world, and they each provide different kinds of answers.
The Sokal affair is just one very specific example that undermined the credibility of a single journal and its editors, but you cannot simply extrapolate from that to say it undermined postmodernism full stop. There are numerous cases of 'bad science' and scandals with accusations aimed at some of entire careers built upon fraudulent work. In both fields, these are the very rare cases and cannot be taken as an indictment against everyone else. Yes, I would fully agree there are some works associated with postmodernism that are horrendous to read, at best simply overcomplicating matters, at worst perhaps making little sense at all. However, these are the minority, and the actual interpretation will of course depend on the expertise of the reader. I wouldn't necessarily expect an student of English literature to be able to understand a paper on quantum mechanics, nor would I necessarily expect a physics student to understand a paper on literary theory. At the end of the day, it comes down to a matter of opinion more than anything, you will find very few postmodernists who would disagree over the importance of the scientific method, what many are actually suggesting is that science must recognise the assumptions upon which it is based. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 00:27, 4 November 2009 (EST)