1,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 54:
Line 54: + + + + + + + +
→Tweaks to the "Ideas" section: new section
::::the pomos have avoided science because they can't handle the complex information it generates, not the complex system science has for deciding what problems to study. Pomos have a standard all-purpose litany about how knowledge is produced that is not based on observation of scientists or of anyone. Large chunks are leftover Marxism. That makes them wide open for ridicule. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:30, 4 November 2009 (EST)
::::the pomos have avoided science because they can't handle the complex information it generates, not the complex system science has for deciding what problems to study. Pomos have a standard all-purpose litany about how knowledge is produced that is not based on observation of scientists or of anyone. Large chunks are leftover Marxism. That makes them wide open for ridicule. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:30, 4 November 2009 (EST)
::::: In response to the claim that ''Postmodernist critique has simply emphasised the need for critical reflexivity:'' Please show me a case where a postmodern critique has had any positive effect upon a scientific discourse. The vague notion of the "species" was not pointed out by postmodern literary theorists; it has been discussed and debated for over two centuries since Linnaeus. Curious anomalies such as ring species weren't examined in Social Text. And all scientists know that they don't "simply have unmediated access to 'reality'". This has been key to the scientific method since the 1600s, when Boyle et. al relied upon repetition and instruments to overcome subjective influence. What exactly has postmodernism contributed to this discourse, or ''any'' discourse of influence? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 10:40, 4 November 2009 (EST)
::::: In response to the claim that ''Postmodernist critique has simply emphasised the need for critical reflexivity:'' Please show me a case where a postmodern critique has had any positive effect upon a scientific discourse. The vague notion of the "species" was not pointed out by postmodern literary theorists; it has been discussed and debated for over two centuries since Linnaeus. Curious anomalies such as ring species weren't examined in Social Text. And all scientists know that they don't "simply have unmediated access to 'reality'". This has been key to the scientific method since the 1600s, when Boyle et. al relied upon repetition and instruments to overcome subjective influence. What exactly has postmodernism contributed to this discourse, or ''any'' discourse of influence? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 10:40, 4 November 2009 (EST)
== Tweaks to the "Ideas" section ==
I'm no fan of the postmodernists, but this page should at least represent the ideas as they really are, rather than <s>constructing</s> ahem, inventing convenient straw men. Some issues:
*"Truth is a social construct." Sorry, there are no postmodern thinkers who say this. For one, they would never write in sentences shorter than 10 words!
*"A society's choice of language..." Last I checked, societies don't choose what language they speak. Plus, there's more to this theory than political correctness, although a connection does exist.
*A distinct lack of sources. I'm working on this one myself, but it should be incumbent on the person making a claim to back it up. "Truth is a social construct" went for too long without anyone actually bothering to find a postmodernist who sad that. I've yet to find one, so I changed it to reflect what postmodernists '''do''' actually say.
I've started this talk page discussion so that anyone who disagrees with how I tweaked the section can work out possible solutions here. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:19, 25 January 2010 (EST)