Postmodernism

[mad]

Is Postmodernism a subject for Skeptics? Other than Richard Dawkins, I have never seen it addressed by Skeptics, but I think it should be. I can accept the “we perceive things through the filter of our culture” side of it. Sure, people have biases and influences. What I can not accept is denying the existence of an external reality because of what a few dead French guys wrote. (Nothing against the French or the Dead).

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Mangafranga]

What I can not accept is denying the existence of an external reality because of what a few dead French guys wrote. (Nothing against the French or the Dead).

Well no you wouldn't want to base your rejection of reality on some components of that reality (i.e. any person, living or dead). And you can just reject what they wrote on the basis of your own subjective understanding of their writings.

So I conclude that you are correct, if you reject reality you ought do so all your on own.

 

[drkitten]

Is Postmodernism a subject for Skeptics?

Sure -- but at this point, even most of the academic wingnuts have abandoned postmodernism. It's hard to have a debate when only one side shows up.

 

[mad]

Sure -- but at this point, even most of the academic wingnuts have abandoned postmodernism. It's hard to have a debate when only one side shows up.

I knew of Postmodernism's existence, but it was beneath my radar until I met a Literary Theory student. It is being taught in German universities.

 

[drkitten]

I knew of Postmodernism's existence, but it was beneath my radar until I met a Literary Theory student. It is being taught in German universities.

Not much, any more. You will find more behaviorists in German psychology departments than you will postmodernists in literature departments today.

Sounds to me like you just picked the wrong Literary Theory student to chat up.

 

[brodski]

It's addressed quiet well in Francis Wheens How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the world, but as DrKitten says, its been pretty much abandoned already.

 

[Mojo]

Steve Fuller seems keen on the idea - and keen on the idea of applying it to science education - if what he said at Skeptics in the Pub is anything to go by.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It's still alive in Missouri, but only in the 'cultural filter' sense

 

[JoeEllison]

It certainly seems to be alive and well on Internet forums, where every woo-ster with a little education and less common sense enjoys pulling it out to impress their friends.

You think postmodern bunk applied to science is weird? I knew a guy online who was convinced that he could use "feminist theories" to support his woo beliefs. Apparently science is too 'phallic" to accept the plain reality of the supernatural, or some such.

 

[mad]

ETA @ drkitten:

I know of two from two different Unis, but thats not exactly a large sample size so hopefully you are right.

 

[volatile]

Not wanting to appear rude, but do any of you actually know what post-modernism IS? Have you ever read any? Or are you just going by what you've heard?

It's perfectly compatible with scepticism, and indeed can be a tool of a sceptical approach. Post-modern approaches to gender, race and sexuality have informed liberalism for most of the second half of this century. Believe me, you all engage in post-modern thought whether you'd care to admit it or not. The type of thought and communication the internet has facilitated is extremely post-modern, as are the founding principles of things like Open Source Software and Wikipedia.

It's true that post-modernism has had its embarrassments - the Sokal affair being maybe the most well known - but considering a comparable occurrence concerning the Journal of Reproductive Medicine recently, I don't think that's reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Postmodernism, despite Dawkin's mischaracterisation, does not posit "everything is true", despite what you've heard.

 

[volatile]

It certainly seems to be alive and well on Internet forums, where every woo-ster with a little education and less common sense enjoys pulling it out to impress their friends.

You think postmodern bunk applied to science is weird? I knew a guy online who was convinced that he could use "feminist theories" to support his woo beliefs. Apparently science is too 'phallic" to accept the plain reality of the supernatural, or some such.

Does woo misuse of quantum physics make the whole of that discipline pointless, too?

 

[JoeEllison]

Does woo misuse of quantum physics make the whole of that discipline pointless, too?

Nope. But, then again, quantum physics is evidence-based. Postmodernism is philosophy-based, which makes it 49.9% woo on its face.

 

[volatile]

Nope. But, then again, quantum physics is evidence-based. Postmodernism is philosophy-based, which makes it 49.9% woo on its face.

Oh really? So Karl Popper was woo? Bertrand Russell? David Hume? Spinoza? Methinks you doth protest too much.

If it wasn't for philosophers, you wouldn't even have the vocabulary to discern woo from reality, Joe. Why do you think Randi and Hitchens quote Russell's Teapot so often?

Who do you think developed the very methodology by which rigid experiments are controlled? Who came up with concepts such as "observer bias", so crucial to science? Philosophy did, and recently.

 

[JoeEllison]

Oh really? So Karl Popper was woo? Bertrand Russell? David Hume? Spinoza? Methinks you doth protest too much.

If it wasn't for philosophers, you wouldn't even have the vocabulary to discern woo from reality, Joe. Why do you think Randi and Hitchens quote Russell's Teapot so often?

Who do you think developed the very methodology by which rigid experiments are controlled? Who came up with concepts such as "observer bias", so crucial to science? Philosophy did, and recently.

You missed the humor... calm down, it will all be ok.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Does woo misuse of quantum physics make the whole of that discipline pointless, too?

Difference being is that quantum physics is an anchored concept. There are actual measurable 'things' that it refers to. Misuse of the theory can be constrained by pointing out the discrepancy between the claim and the measurements of the 'things' in question.

In contrast, postmodernism is philosophy. It is an unanchored concept. It is defined by its use. As more and more people use it away from reasonable uses, the meaning of postmodernism changes to something unreasonable.

 

[volatile]

Difference being is that quantum physics is an anchored concept. There are actual measurable 'things' that it refers to. Misuse of the theory can be constrained by pointing out the discrepancy between the claim and the measurements of the 'things' in question.

In contrast, postmodernism is philosophy. It is an unanchored concept. It is defined by its use. As more and more people use it away from reasonable uses, the meaning of postmodernism changes to something unreasonable.

A fair point, I suppose. But many people who dump on post-modernism don't seem to have actually read any, and thus make false conclusions. That some woos misuse, and misunderstand, philosophy I have no doubt. I'd just ask that you extend the same courtesy in checking woo claims about philosophy that you do in checking woo claims about quantum physics.

Just a quick example - the belief that women should be paid equally to men for doing the same job is a position borne out of social constructionist post-modern philosophy. It's social constructionism which presents the position that we should be sceptical that x is better than y just because it's always been that way. You all work through problems and opinions like that regularly (indeed, I'd hold that this type of relativism is important for sceptical thinking), but yet are often all too quick to disregard the contribution postmodern thought has made to the changing social climate.

 

[mad]

Not wanting to appear rude, but do any of you actually know what post-modernism IS? Have you ever read any? Or are you just going by what you've heard?

It's perfectly compatible with scepticism, and indeed can be a tool of a sceptical approach. Post-modern approaches to gender, race and sexuality have informed liberalism for most of the second half of this century. Believe me, you all engage in post-modern thought whether you'd care to admit it or not. The type of thought and communication the internet has facilitated is extremely post-modern, as are the founding principles of things like Open Source Software and Wikipedia.

It's true that post-modernism has had its embarrassments - the Sokal affair being maybe the most well known - but considering a comparable occurrence concerning the Journal of Reproductive Medicine recently, I don't think that's reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Postmodernism, despite Dawkin's mischaracterisation, does not posit "everything is true", despite what you've heard.

From reading about Postmodernism, it looks like it is hard to narrow down what it is. Still, there dose seem to be some things in common in things generally considered Postmodern. One of the basic tenets of hard Postmodernism is "equally valid ways of knowing." My reality may equally valid when compared to your reality, but "reality" is what ever it is regardless of what we think.

I think Postmodernism may have had a valid point, but it has gone far beyond that point.

And Lit Critics misusing quantum physics should not be a reason to suspect quantum physics, unless you are only learning it from Lit Critics.

 

[volatile]

From reading about Postmodernism, it looks like it is hard to narrow down what it is. Still, there dose seem to be some things in common in things generally considered Postmodern. One of the basic tenets of hard Postmodernism is "equally valid ways of knowing." My reality may equally valid when compared to your reality, but "reality" is what ever it is regardless of what we think.

Not quite true. You're conflating ways of cultural knowing (say in understanding a written text, a painting, a political structure etc.) and ways of scientifically knowing. Postmodernism does not claim that scientific empiricism is wrong. It doesn't stake claims on "reality" as you seem to be understanding it.

I'll mention women earning as much as men again, for the sake of illustration. That men should earn more than women, or vice versa, is not an empirically testable claim. For questions such as these, we need to use philosophy of sorts - and it was the postmoderninsts who went to great lengths to point out that the social construction of woman as lower earner was just that, a construction not based in reality. That's just one example, there are thousands more.

And Lit Critics misusing quantum physics should not be a reason to suspect quantum physics, unless you are only learning it from Lit Critics.

Exactly. And Internet posters misunderstanding postmodernism should not be a reason to suspect postmodernism.

May I heartily request you take a look at some postmodern philosophers - Derrida, for example, or Deleuze? They're enormously enriching and not at all the peddlers of pseudoscience you might have been led to believe they are.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Just before we go any further, could the OP please cite some examples of where postmodernists 'den[ied] the existence of an external reality'?

Postmodernism (which, technically, is a theory of architectural aesthetics from the early 1990s) has nothing to say about the nature of reality. Its various literary and sociological spin-offs have a lot to say about the nature of how we talk about reality.

Which I would argue is both a really interesting thing to investigate, and not something that can easily be grasped using the scientific method. In fact, I'd go further than that and say that it's vital that we investigate this stuff. Not so long ago it was "reality" that black people weren't as clever as white people, and not so long before that it was pretty much "reality" that colonialism was a jolly good idea. You stop these things from ever, ever being "reality" again by making sure there's a section of your society that is continually questioning what we all consider to be real.