Trying to, em, understand? postmodernist views of science

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Now I am not absolutely opposed to what falls under the postmodernist umbrella. I like taking a critical approach to society and, if Jorge Luis Borges can be considered postmodernist, then I can't throw postmodernism out the window entirely.

However, I am confused by the attitude many postmodernists tend to take towards what we can generally agree is objective: math, science, and logic, as you will see from reading this article:

Dawkins Review of Intellectual Impostures

Doubtlessly, the human mind is subject to many biases, the senses fail us regularly, and our philosophy shapes what we consider "truth". (I would point out that science and, to some degree, math and logic, can be verified through experience.) But the particular criticism common in the postmodernist community, that these objective fields represent the viewpoints of privileged groups, typically rich white males, is unfounded in my opinion. It is indeed injurious, because it implies, for example, that a San hunter-gatherer or Chinese Mohist logician are using a fundamentally different logic than the white Western hegemonic penis-oriented bla bla bla logic. That has been shown not to be the case: both of these groups understand logic much as Europeans have for years, although in somewhat different terms. This viewpoint also necessarily supposes that "masculine science" and "feminine science" are somehow opposed, which, besides being untrue, really only fosters negative stereotyping, doesn't it?

What are these postmodernists trying to say, really? Do they have a point or are they full of it?

/thread

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,836 • Replies: 26

No top replies

@odenskrigare,

Don't listen to Richard Dawkins. He, along with just about every other "scientific-minded" intellectual in the Anglosphere, likes to take potshots at the French primarily out of resentment. Reading 20th century French philosophy is really hard because they use a lot of big words and talk about difficult concepts and if you don't put in the effort, it can easily make you feel stupid. When this happens to people like Dawkins, they feel the need to lash out, generalize, and take quotes out of context.

My advice is that if you're actually interested in learning what Derrida, Foucualt, etc, have to say, go out and read them. When you read them, make sure to read charitably. If you come across something that you don't understand (and I assure you that you will almost immediately), don't assume that they're stupid or meaningless or out to make themselves look smart -- assume that you're the one who doesn't understand what's going on and try hard to get it.

If you're not actually interested, keep reading Dawkins and Sokal.

3 Replies

@Theages,

Post-modernism was never really intended for science, it may be intended for the texts that scientists produce, which are in fact interpretations of data. The interpretation of which are subject to all sorts of things that can be decentralized, deconstructed, and reconstructed into different narratives. If one refuses to see the narrative in everything we produce, meaning that the history/culture/tradition/human nature/discriminatory practices that influence and or guides everything we do creates a story of agency.

Post-modernism was never intended, by most, to replace science, only to present possibilities that science may not take into account. Possibly to delve into the causes and narratives of the scientists, and their interaction with data. Possibly to present a counter narrative of the same data, not to claim truth as science strives for but to claim possibility, to create a meta-narrative of science.

0 Replies

@Theages,

:lol:Sorry, I thought this was hilarious coming from Dawkins:

"Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? "

Dawkins wants to sell books, go on the O'Reilly factor and spew pseudo-philosophical pablum that amounts to 99 parts hot air, 1 part 'Why I am Not a Christian' by Bertrand Russell all under the pretext that he is some kind of great crusader for truth with profound wisdom from above.

I would suggest finding an introduction to postmodern thought that is done by someone with some competence. There are some interesting ideas in there(based on my own readings), and the language is not nearly as bad if taken in context. Many terms are defined in the text, don't let Dawkin's attention grubbing dissuade you from bettering yourself.

0 Replies

@Theages,

Theages;68138 wrote:

Don't listen to Richard Dawkins. He, along with just about every other "scientific-minded" intellectual in the Anglosphere, likes to take potshots at the French primarily out of resentment.

You are affirming the consequent.

If Anglo intellectuals were resentful of French intellectuals, they would rip into the arguments of French intellectuals.
Anglo intellectuals have ripped into the arguments of French intellectuals.
Therefore, Anglo intellectuals are simply resentful of French intellectuals.

This is not valid reasoning. Compare another instance of affirming the consequent:

If I drop an egg, it will break.
I see a broken egg.
I must have dropped it.

See the fallacy? Just as there can be more than one cause for breaking an egg, there can be more than one cause for disputing someone's philosophy

Plus not every postmodernist in question is from France. The name "Sandra Harding" sounds right Germanic!

Theages;68138 wrote:

Reading 20th century French philosophy is really hard because they use a lot of big words and talk about difficult concepts and if you don't put in the effort, it can easily make you feel stupid.

I can read math texts up to and occasionally including the graduate level, most of the articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, various language grammars, excerpts from Mohist tracts, the writings of Noam Chomsky on generative grammar, the allusion laden writings of Jorge Luis Borges, etc.

Sometimes these make one feel stupid, but I press on.

Writers like Lacan just don't make sense.

Theages;68138 wrote:

My advice is that if you're actually interested in learning what Derrida, Foucualt, etc, have to say, go out and read them. When you read them, make sure to read charitably. If you come across something that you don't understand (and I assure you that you will almost immediately), don't assume that they're stupid or meaningless or out to make themselves look smart -- assume that you're the one who doesn't understand what's going on and try hard to get it.

Question, what does this mean:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins_img1.gif

GoshisDead;68148 wrote:

If one refuses to see the narrative in everything we produce, meaning that the history/culture/tradition/human nature/discriminatory practices that influence and or guides everything we do creates a story of agency.

Sometimes a Bunsen burner is just a Bunsen burner.

Zetetic11235;68149 wrote:

I would suggest finding an introduction to postmodern thought that is done by someone with some competence. There are some interesting ideas in there(based on my own readings), and the language is not nearly as bad if taken in context. Many terms are defined in the text, don't let Dawkin's attention grubbing dissuade you from bettering yourself.

I am trying to find a context for this:

.....and why the erectile organ is equivalent to the square root of negative one. I don't see the connection though.

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

That is pretty goofy, I'll admit that there are a great deal of crackpots floating around out there and sometimes they are revered by the ignorant.

I would simply look into what is sensible and ignore anything that is clearly bunk. If something in philosophy is too assertive, it should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;68161 wrote:

That is pretty goofy, I'll admit that there are a great deal of crackpots floating around out there and sometimes they are revered by the ignorant.

Jacques Lacan is a revered postmodernist.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

I've only really read some Derrida, I just can't resist making fun of Dawkins.

As far as graduate texts in mathematics go, know that Dummit and Foote is not Lang's Algebra, so that statement has little meaning. The question is, are you patient enough to wade through tons of esoteric verbiage just to get one small point out of it that you might will disagree with?

EDIT: As far as I can tell, Lacan was not a postmodernist philosopher, he was an early psychoanalyst who merely influenced some postmodernist thinking.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;68164 wrote:

I've only really read some Derrida, I just can't resist making fun of Dawkins.

Dawkins is cool

Zetetic11235;68164 wrote:

As far as graduate texts in mathematics go, know that Dummit and Foote is not Lang's Algebra, so that statement has little meaning.

Dummit and Foote sucks lol

Zetetic11235;68164 wrote:

The question is, are you patient enough to wade through tons of esoteric verbiage just to get one small point out of it that you might will disagree with?

No.

Zetetic11235;68164 wrote:

EDIT: As far as I can tell, Lacan was not a postmodernist philosopher, he was an early psychoanalyst who merely influenced some postmodernist thinking.

He's a huge influence on a number of Continental philosophers.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;68166 wrote:

Dawkins is cool

I disagree

odenskrigare;68166 wrote:

Dummit and Foote sucks lol

So does Lang's algebra (except maybe the exercises).

odenskrigare;68166 wrote:

No.

Then I doubt you would have fun reading postmodernist philosophy, from the looks of it.

odenskrigare;68166 wrote:

He's a huge influence on a number of Continental philosophers.

I think that speaks volumes about much of the continental philosophy that has developed over the last century:). Personally, I can only bring myself to read some Camus and Sartre, other than that I pretty much only like the analytic philosophers.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;68168 wrote:

I disagree

Dawkins is an elite troll

Zetetic11235;68168 wrote:

Then I doubt you would have fun reading postmodernist philosophy, from the looks of it.

I like some authors labeled "postmodernist", but I don't like the epistemic relativism of many postmodernists and especially the lollacaust of abusing mathematical terms and tarring science with an alleged "masculine bias".

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

Never been one for elitist trolls. Smile

Anyway, is your intent to better understand postmodernism or to make fun of its failings? I'm really only good for the latter. Unless you want to talk about algebra.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;68157 wrote:

You are affirming the consequent.

If Anglo intellectuals were resentful of French intellectuals, they would rip into the arguments of French intellectuals.

Anglo intellectuals have ripped into the arguments of French intellectuals.

Therefore, Anglo intellectuals are simply resentful of French intellectuals.

This is not valid reasoning.

I'm amazed to see a logical fallacy identified in a post that didn't contain a deductive argument. I only presented two facts, namely, 1) Certain Anglo-American intellectuals like to attack the French, and 2) they do so out of resentment.

There is no fallacy because there is no proof. There is no proof because there is no argument. There is no argument because there are only facts.

If you want a deduction, here you go:

1. Some Anglo-American intellectuals harbor resentment against the French.

2. If an Anglo-American intellectual harbors resentment against the French, then that person attacks the French.

3. Therefore, some Anglo-American intellectuals attack the French.

Quote:

Plus not every postmodernist in question is from France. The name "Sandra Harding" sounds right Germanic!

I was obviously generalizing. While there are of course plenty Germans, Americans, and other involved in "postmodernism", the bulk of ignorant polemics from people like Dawkins are directed primarily towards the French.

Quote:

I can read math texts up to and occasionally including the graduate level, most of the articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, various language grammars, excerpts from Mohist tracts, the writings of Noam Chomsky on generative grammar, the allusion laden writings of Jorge Luis Borges, etc.

Sometimes these make one feel stupid, but I press on.

Writers like Lacan just don't make sense.

I'm not familiar with Lacan, but there are a lot of smart people who think that he does make sense. I'm working through a mathematical logic textbook right now, and much of it doesn't make sense to me. Just like it would be pretty arrogant of me to assume that Elliot Mendelson doesn't know what he's talking about just because I don't, it's quite arrogant of you to assume that you know what Lacan is talking about better than he does. (This is assuming you've actually sat down with a Lacan text, which I'm guessing you haven't.)

Quote:

I am trying to find a context for this:

.....and why the erectile organ is equivalent to the square root of negative one. I don't see the connection though.

How hard are you trying? Can you cite the text from which this was taken? Can you explain what came before it and what came after it? "Trying to find a context" consists of more than just sitting around imagining what it could mean.

1 Reply

@Theages,

Theages;68179 wrote:

I'm amazed to see a logical fallacy identified in a post that didn't contain a deductive argument. I only presented two facts, namely, 1) Certain Anglo-American intellectuals like to attack the French, and 2) they do so out of resentment.

How do you know they do so "out of resentment"?

Theages;68179 wrote:

I was obviously generalizing. While there are of course plenty Germans, Americans, and other involved in "postmodernism", the bulk of ignorant polemics from people like Dawkins are directed primarily towards the French.

Prove it.

Theages;68179 wrote:

How hard are you trying? Can you cite the text from which this was taken? Can you explain what came before it and what came after it? "Trying to find a context" consists of more than just sitting around imagining what it could mean.

Here's the source:

[INDENT]It is thus that the erectile organ-not in itself, or even in the form of an image, but as a part lacking in the desired image-comes to symbolize the place of jouissance: this is why the erectile organ can be equated with the square root of negative one.[/INDENT]I see it in ample context and he still hasn't given an adequate explanation as to why penis = sqrt(-1)

In what kind of "context" can you really put a statement like that?

Could it be that Lacan is just full of crap? Or is that an application of Occam's razor, I mean, an "overly pedestrian conclusion"?

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;68194 wrote:

How do you know they do so "out of resentment"?

They aren't outright stupid, so I can't imagine any other explanation for the scandalous lack of charity shown by people like John Searle, for example, in their dealings with Franco-German philosophers.

That and the fact that I used to be like them grants me considerable insight into how they think.

Quote:

Prove it.

Well, besides the crappy article you cited, there are plenty of books like this one by Alan Sokal:

Amazon.com: Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science: Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont: Books

Do a little searching, I'm sure you'll see what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Here's the source:

[INDENT]It is thus that the erectile organ-not in itself, or even in the form of an image, but as a part lacking in the desired image-comes to symbolize the place of jouissance: this is why the erectile organ can be equated with the square root of negative one.[/INDENT]I see it in ample context and he still hasn't given an adequate explanation as to why penis = sqrt(-1)

In what kind of "context" can you really put a statement like that?

Could it be that Lacan is just full of crap? Or is that an application of Occam's razor, I mean, an "overly pedestrian conclusion"?

Google searching a book to find a particular phrase doesn't qualify as a charitable reading.

It could be possible that he's full of crap, but as I said before, it's incredibly arrogant to jump to that conclusion before considering your own lack of understanding.

1 Reply

@Theages,

Theages;68199 wrote:

They aren't outright stupid, so I can't imagine any other explanation for the scandalous lack of charity shown by people like John Searle, for example, in their dealings with Franco-German philosophers.

Huh?

Theages;68199 wrote:

Well, besides the crappy article you cited, there are plenty of books like this one by Alan Sokal:

Amazon.com: Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science: Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont: Books

Jean Bricmont looks like a French name.

Did you "read this book charitably"? Because I'm willing to bet that it's clearer than anything by Lacan.

Theages;68199 wrote:

It could be possible that he's full of crap, but as I said before, it's incredibly arrogant to jump to that conclusion before considering your own lack of understanding.

Because I don't allow my mind to be dominated by flights of fancy about the penis, I have a hard time understanding Lacan.

Professional mathematicians don't get his abuse of mathematical terms either:

Topology and Psychoanalysis

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;68201 wrote:

Huh?

People like John Searle (to name one) are completely uncharitable when they read Franco-German philosophy. I can think of only two reasons for this:

1. They are stupid, i.e. they are incapable of understanding.

2. They have some kind of aversion to understanding that prevents them from doing so, e.g. resentment, arrogance, and the like.

Denying that there is a problem at all betrays ignorance on your part.

Quote:

Jean Bricmont looks like a French name.

Did you "read this book charitably"? Because I'm willing to bet that it's clearer than anything by Lacan.

I never said that no French people have ever gotten mad about this stuff.

And you are right that it is written clearly, but it is clear in the sense that all shallow things are clear.

Quote:

Because I don't allow my mind to be dominated by flights of fancy about the penis, I have a hard time understanding Lacan.

Professional mathematicians don't get his abuse of mathematical terms either:

Topology and Psychoanalysis

I don't know why you're so fixated on Lacan in particular, but in any case you still haven't demonstrated that you have the faintest understanding of what he did.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Found a clue:

I would recommend spending some time with some of the secondary literature on Lacanian psychoanalysis first. What screws a lot of people up are the word/language games/puns/plays he incorporates as part of his seminars and writings (which make them appear like gibberish to anyone who hasn't internalized Saussurean linguistics) which are then incorporated into a larger dialectical framework. Unless you're actually planning to become a psychoanalyst I would say the ones most valuable to philosophy/culture would be Seminar VII (Ethics & Desire) and XI (the 4 fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis)

A wiki on Saussure:

Ferdinand de Saussure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Are either of you defending the equation of the penis to the square root of negative one? I just want to be clear on this.

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

I don't know what his point was as far as the penis and I won't make an uninformed judgment no matter how silly the matter is. I'm just trying to see if Lacan really wrote gibberish exclusively. If its some kind of weird pun I don't get then I would be an ignoramus for taking it seriously and dismissing the whole of Lacan's work on that single point.

Besides penises seem pretty prevalent in psychoanalysis. I think its second to mother trouble? Smile

0 Replies

Trying to, em, understand? postmodernist views of science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know