209
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: +
→Sokal
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)
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)
::the pomos have very weird notions about "the assumptions" on which science is based. They think it's based on monopoly capitalism and government control--because they deny the reality of how scientists control science, and the deny the reality of how people control the government. They lack tools to detect reality, is their main problem. The CP article is rather better balances, I suggest, than most pomo peieces themselves. DWiggins could be helpful by suggesting additions to the article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:45, 4 November 2009 (EST)
::the pomos have very weird notions about "the assumptions" on which science is based. They think it's based on monopoly capitalism and government control--because they deny the reality of how scientists control science, and the deny the reality of how people control the government. They lack tools to detect reality, is their main problem. The CP article is rather better balances, I suggest, than most pomo peieces themselves. DWiggins could be helpful by suggesting additions to the article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:45, 4 November 2009 (EST)
:::Actually, what I meant by assumptions was nothing like what you've stated about 'monopoly capitalism' or anything like that. There are more fundamental assumptions, such as the one I referred to earlier, the assumption of a real world independent of human experience, something science cannot prove but has to assume else the method falls down. Consider for example the idea of objectivity. However, humans do not simply have unmediated access to 'reality' given how we experience it through our senses, and how our own values can influence our experiences. Science also has to recognise the idea of 'social constructs'. Of course, all language is to an extent a construct, the words we assign to phenomena were not pre-existing, and so it is not simply 'natural' how we categorise such phenomena. Take for example the concept of a 'species'. It was decided that reproductive ability was to be the basis for defining a species, yet there are numerous cases where the concept of a 'species' does not always hold up very well and has posed problems. It's when science, or any other means of producing knowledge about the world, begins to turn assumptions into facts that it poses problems. Postmodernist critique has simply emphasised the need for critical reflexivity. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 01:11, 4 November 2009 (EST)