Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
The dry rot of relativism has taken over academe (even science faculties) to an alarming extent and people need to speak up about it.
In TML Harris writes:
“I don’t think one has fully enjoyed the life of the mind until one has seen a celebrated scholar defend the “contextual” legitimacy of the burqa, or of female genital mutilation, a mere thirty seconds after announcing that moral relativism does nothing to diminish a person’s commitment to making the world a better place.” TML p27.
Then on p43 he recounts a conversation he had at a conference where he spoke of ‘... the ruthless misogyny and religious bamboozlement of the Taliban as an example of a worldview that seems less than perfectly conducive to human flourishing.” he goes on to recount a conversation he had after the conference with an academic who went on to serve on the President’s Commission for the study of Bioethical Issues.
She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?
Harris: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing well-being - and that it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating and killing them if they refuse, is not good strategy for maximizing human well-being.
She: But that’s only your opinion.
Harris: Ok…Let’s make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you agree then that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human well-being?
She; It would depend on why they were doing it.
Harris: [slowly returning [his] eyebrows from the back of his head]: Lets say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, “Every third must walk in darkness”
She: Then you could never say that they were wrong.TML pp43-44
This is post-modernist relativism for you from an academic. I won’t go on but the rest of the section is worth reading. It is this sort of nonsense that both Sam and Richard Dawkins (rightly) despise in academe. Call me a grumpy, unreconstructed old fundamentalist science fanatic - Darkins and Harris are absolutely right.
I understand what you’re saying, Rob, and agree entirely with your above expressed sentiments. I remember what it was like to have spent 6 years at a campus (UW-SP between 1977 and 1983) where feminist theory had reached depths of accusatory insanity. It was dangerous just being an adult male then, and still is somewhat, as a result of certain over-the-top agenda-driven academics. Such insanity needs to be addressed and battled, and it is. That a philosophical take attracts strong-willed lunatics does not necessarily mean that nothing at all can be gained by looking further at that philosophical take. Postmodern approaches attract reasonable academics, as well, wouldn’t you say?
I have much sympathy with, commitment even, to the idea that we should respect, tolerate and give equality to different races, genders, sexualities. Cultural differences that have little or no moral import are also unproblematic. No problem with any of that. But it went beyond that long ago. 25 years ago when I was at universuity I was afraid to say mantlepeice for fear that some feminist zealot would jump down my throat. Things have not improved. I simply refuse to counternace feminisit, queer, jewish or christian physics or any other branch of science. I would like to see all peopel able to participate equally in science. That would be fine. But science must remain science. The speed of light remains about 300,000 k per second whether I measure it, you measure it, Gemain Greer measures it or Albert einstein measures it. It just is. Science is like that. But it has actually been seriously asserted that light speed is a male chauvanist and relative concept that should not be taken as the last word. I ask you!
I think Postmodernism’s bad reputation comes from eager, up and coming narratives (or old ones) that use science to anoint their “truth” the same way the theist use woo to anoint theirs.
I think Postmodernism’s bad reputation comes from eager, up and coming narratives (or old ones) that use science to anoint their “truth” the same way the theist use woo to anoint theirs.
That’s part of it Nhoj. Another factor is that when people get tenure, especially in arts/humanities departments (literary theory is a prime culprit) they have to produce something. The work on the assumption that the more complicated they can make nothing sound the more profound they think everyone else will think it really is.
Ok, I’m generalising but there is some truth in that.
I think Postmodernism’s bad reputation comes from eager, up and coming narratives (or old ones) that use science to anoint their “truth” the same way the theist use woo to anoint theirs.
The thing is that they can’t really use science because for them “science” is just another story, and an oppressive one at that.
Luce Irigaray:
“Is E = mc2 a sexist equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its use by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest….”
French sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard unwittingly provides a brilliant example of the abuse of scientific terms when he writes, and with a straight face:
“Our complex, metastatic, viral systems, condemned to the exponential dimension alone (be it that of exponential stability or instability), to eccentricity and indefinite fractal scissiparity, can no longer come to an end. Condemned to an intense metabolism, to an intense internal metastasis, they become exhausted within themselves and no longer have any destination, any end, any otherness, any fatality. They are condemned, precisely, to the epidemic, to the endless excrescences of the fractal and not to the reversibility and perfect resolution of the fateful.”
The value of reasonable postmodern approaches is that they transgress the boundaries of the fossilized exoskeleton of restrictive modernism, pointing out that there are multiple narratives. What isn’t done (and needs to be developed) is to present a critique of narratives so that we can really say that narrative A is objectively better than narrative B in context C.
And for some of the more radical postmoderns, Heidegger gives a good description:
“Everything essential… which has decisive meaning without being conspicuous, is always attended by what only looks like the genuine and real thing, the semblance. This is why, in every period, philosophy must bring in its wake something that looks like philosophy and imitates it in manner and behavior, and even outdoes it—and yet at bottom poses an embarrassment. The semblance of the [philosopher] is the [sophist]. The latter does not strive for genuine understanding, has no perseverance, but only nibbles on everything, always just on the newest and usually on what is in fact even worthwhile, but he only nibbles on it and is seduced into mere curiosity and bluffing. He is not one who seeks to understand…. He is rather the rationalizer for whom nothing is certain, except those things he notices he cannot reach with his means. The latter he does not, however, simply leave alone but tries to show that just that sort of thing does not exist or is a fabrication of philosophers.”
I think we can use Science. It’s called Social Science. To force women to wear burquas against their will, to make them conform to traditions and dogmatic belief systems that they might not even believe in or agree with, is socially and ethically wrong. It hurts their well being.
French sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard unwittingly provides a brilliant example of the abuse of scientific terms when he writes, and with a straight face:
“Our complex, metastatic, viral systems, condemned to the exponential dimension alone (be it that of exponential stability or instability), to eccentricity and indefinite fractal scissiparity, can no longer come to an end. Condemned to an intense metabolism, to an intense internal metastasis, they become exhausted within themselves and no longer have any destination, any end, any otherness, any fatality. They are condemned, precisely, to the epidemic, to the endless excrescences of the fractal and not to the reversibility and perfect resolution of the fateful.”
I think Postmodernism’s bad reputation comes from eager, up and coming narratives (or old ones) that use science to anoint their “truth” the same way the theist use woo to anoint theirs.
I’m not following you. Science is a method of discovering and documenting what is true. Are you treating science and woo as equal choices to a philosopher? Are you saying it is a bad idea to look to science for grounding ones philosophy in reality?
I saying that some use science as badly as I use grammer.
Bits of science become the “decisive evidence” that closes the circle of some tautology.
Think of how Darwin (or bits of) was used by everybody to make their schemes work or seem justified.
Gov. Paary says he won’t accept global warming until the science is decisive- like religion is. It never will be, or should it be, and that’s why the Gov. will never have to listen to science. Except when it’s handy to be true. Then it will make something decisive for him like, when life begins.
The scientific consensus on global warming is in and complete. That doesn’t mean every fact is known of course, but the theory that global warming is anthropogenic is accurrate.
People don’t understand the methodologies of science.
I’m one of those strange philosophical creatures who exists partly in the postmodern realm and yet does not accept it as THE overarching narrative. Those who claim that science itself is just another of many prejudiced or perspectivist narratives are really somehow defeating themselves, because implicit in such a claim is that “postmodernism” is the one (objective?)truth, even though it denies the existence of any objective truth. It’s like the statement “All text is false” which, in effect denies itself if it is true . . . thus it leads one to conclude that the statement itself is false, therefore that doesn’t impinge on the veracity of any other statements.
I agree that science can be dogmatic and chauvinistic, but that has nothing to with science itself but rather with those who practice it stupidly . . . and there are many such scientists out there proving that point all the time. The point at bottom is that narratives (even science if so viewed) are not independent of human behaviours. IOW, there is no narrative that stands independent of what human beings can comprehend/conceptualize, but there are certain tests (not narrative driven or dependent, but actually behaviours based on evidence) that stand as actions which validate or invalidate the content of any narrative. Science itself is grounded in these practices and if necessary each human being can employ these practices in order to discover whether what is being said is true or not independent of the rhetorical content. This is the basis of empirical evidence accessed through actual experience.
I saying that some use science as badly as I use grammer.
Bits of science become the “decisive evidence” that closes the circle of some tautology.
Think of how Darwin (or bits of) was used by everybody to make their schemes work or seem justified.
Gov. Paary says he won’t accept global warming until the science is decisive- like religion is. It never will be, or should it be, and that’s why the Gov. will never have to listen to science. Except when it’s handy to be true. Then it will make something decisive for him like, when life begins.
I’m one of those strange philosophical creatures who exists partly in the postmodern realm and yet does not accept it as THE overarching narrative. Those who claim that science itself is just another of many prejudiced or perspectivist narratives are really somehow defeating themselves, because implicit in such a claim is that “postmodernism” is the one (objective?)truth, even though it denies the existence of any objective truth. It’s like the statement “All text is false” which, in effect denies itself if it is true . . . thus it leads one to conclude that the statement itself is false, therefore that doesn’t impinge on the veracity of any other statements.
I agree that science can be dogmatic and chauvinistic, but that has nothing to with science itself but rather with those who practice it stupidly . . . and there are many such scientists out there proving that point all the time. The point at bottom is that narratives (even science if so viewed) are not independent of human behaviours. IOW, there is no narrative that stands independent of what human beings can comprehend/conceptualize, but there are certain tests (not narrative driven or dependent, but actually behaviours based on evidence) that stand as actions which validate or invalidate the content of any narrative. Science itself is grounded in these practices and if necessary each human being can employ these practices in order to discover whether what is being said is true or not independent of the rhetorical content. This is the basis of empirical evidence accessed through actual experience.
And these things have to be hashed out now that science is beginning to look at human behavior and morality. We have empirical tests that say heavy and light objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, we don’t have those sorts of tests yet for moral issues.
I’m one of those strange philosophical creatures who exists partly in the postmodern realm and yet does not accept it as THE overarching narrative. Those who claim that science itself is just another of many prejudiced or perspectivist narratives are really somehow defeating themselves, because implicit in such a claim is that “postmodernism” is the one (objective?)truth, even though it denies the existence of any objective truth. It’s like the statement “All text is false” which, in effect denies itself if it is true . . . thus it leads one to conclude that the statement itself is false, therefore that doesn’t impinge on the veracity of any other statements.
I agree that science can be dogmatic and chauvinistic, but that has nothing to with science itself but rather with those who practice it stupidly . . . and there are many such scientists out there proving that point all the time. The point at bottom is that narratives (even science if so viewed) are not independent of human behaviours. IOW, there is no narrative that stands independent of what human beings can comprehend/conceptualize, but there are certain tests (not narrative driven or dependent, but actually behaviours based on evidence) that stand as actions which validate or invalidate the content of any narrative. Science itself is grounded in these practices and if necessary each human being can employ these practices in order to discover whether what is being said is true or not independent of the rhetorical content. This is the basis of empirical evidence accessed through actual experience.
This is close to where I’m at. I have the same gut reaction to abuse that Sam Harris does but I suspect strongly that trying to underwrite human value with science is a lost cause. There are a few basic reasons for this. One is the relatively recent view that human beings ought to be considered ends unto themselves. Call it liberty perhaps. A view I’m inclined to agree with but one unavoidable consequence is that we commit not only to their physical health but also to their emotions and to the preservation of their options. Which is simple when they share a majority of our preferences but becomes extraordinarily difficult when they do not. One is tasked with a whole host of paradoxes whereby a balance must be struck between individual freedom and the protection from the individual freedom of others. While cognitive processes certainly are engaged in this process I don’t think it can be boiled to science because any rational, value-neutral process will serve an unethical goal just as well as an ethical one. The only thing that WBCC can meaningfully propose to preserve is some sort of maternal totalitarianism. I don’t see how it could possibly inform or defend liberty. This seems to be simply a preference, as per the post modern view.
And, honestly, I think this is best. If freedom is any kind of virtue it must pass its own muster. It would be a contradiction to force anyone to be free. Bootstraps and belt buckles.
I’m one of those strange philosophical creatures who exists partly in the postmodern realm and yet does not accept it as THE overarching narrative. Those who claim that science itself is just another of many prejudiced or perspectivist narratives are really somehow defeating themselves, because implicit in such a claim is that “postmodernism” is the one (objective?)truth, even though it denies the existence of any objective truth. It’s like the statement “All text is false” which, in effect denies itself if it is true . . . thus it leads one to conclude that the statement itself is false, therefore that doesn’t impinge on the veracity of any other statements.
I agree that science can be dogmatic and chauvinistic, but that has nothing to with science itself but rather with those who practice it stupidly . . . and there are many such scientists out there proving that point all the time. The point at bottom is that narratives (even science if so viewed) are not independent of human behaviours. IOW, there is no narrative that stands independent of what human beings can comprehend/conceptualize, but there are certain tests (not narrative driven or dependent, but actually behaviours based on evidence) that stand as actions which validate or invalidate the content of any narrative. Science itself is grounded in these practices and if necessary each human being can employ these practices in order to discover whether what is being said is true or not independent of the rhetorical content. This is the basis of empirical evidence accessed through actual experience.
This is close to where I’m at. I have the same gut reaction to abuse that Sam Harris does but I suspect strongly that trying to underwrite human value with science is a lost cause. There are a few basic reasons for this. One is the relatively recent view that human beings ought to be considered ends unto themselves. Call it liberty perhaps. A view I’m inclined to agree with but one unavoidable consequence is that we commit not only to their physical health but also to their emotions and to the preservation of their options. Which is simple when they share a majority of our preferences but becomes extraordinarily difficult when they do not. One is tasked with a whole host of paradoxes whereby a balance must be struck between individual freedom and the protection from the individual freedom of others. While cognitive processes certainly are engaged in this process I don’t think it can be boiled to science because any rational, value-neutral process will serve an unethical goal just as well as an ethical one. The only thing that WBCC can meaningfully propose to preserve is some sort of maternal totalitarianism. I don’t see how it could possibly inform or defend liberty. This seems to be simply a preference, as per the post modern view.
And, honestly, I think this is best. If freedom is any kind of virtue it must pass its own muster. It would be a contradiction to force anyone to be free. Bootstraps and belt buckles.
On the other hand, having a scientific understanding of who and what we are seems like the best foundation to start building on.
I think Postmodernism’s bad reputation comes from eager, up and coming narratives (or old ones) that use science to anoint their “truth” the same way the theist use woo to anoint theirs.
The thing is that they can’t really use science because for them “science” is just another story, and an oppressive one at that.
Luce Irigaray:
“Is E = mc2 a sexist equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its use by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest….”
French sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard unwittingly provides a brilliant example of the abuse of scientific terms when he writes, and with a straight face:
“Our complex, metastatic, viral systems, condemned to the exponential dimension alone (be it that of exponential stability or instability), to eccentricity and indefinite fractal scissiparity, can no longer come to an end. Condemned to an intense metabolism, to an intense internal metastasis, they become exhausted within themselves and no longer have any destination, any end, any otherness, any fatality. They are condemned, precisely, to the epidemic, to the endless excrescences of the fractal and not to the reversibility and perfect resolution of the fateful.”
The value of reasonable postmodern approaches is that they transgress the boundaries of the fossilized exoskeleton of restrictive modernism, pointing out that there are multiple narratives. What isn’t done (and needs to be developed) is to present a critique of narratives so that we can really say that narrative A is objectively better than narrative B in context C.
And for some of the more radical postmoderns, Heidegger gives a good description:
“Everything essential… which has decisive meaning without being conspicuous, is always attended by what only looks like the genuine and real thing, the semblance. This is why, in every period, philosophy must bring in its wake something that looks like philosophy and imitates it in manner and behavior, and even outdoes it—and yet at bottom poses an embarrassment. The semblance of the [philosopher] is the [sophist]. The latter does not strive for genuine understanding, has no perseverance, but only nibbles on everything, always just on the newest and usually on what is in fact even worthwhile, but he only nibbles on it and is seduced into mere curiosity and bluffing. He is not one who seeks to understand…. He is rather the rationalizer for whom nothing is certain, except those things he notices he cannot reach with his means. The latter he does not, however, simply leave alone but tries to show that just that sort of thing does not exist or is a fabrication of philosophers.”
Yes, when people allow themselves to get so carried away by the apparent (to themselves) elegance of obscure terms, it can send through any sensible reader shrieks of doubt about their adhered-to philosophical stances. One of my brothers, an electrician by trade who’s also an artistic photographer, married an architect who keeps up with things in her field, with her travels including trips to Harvard and such places. In the few conversations I’ve had with him about the subject of higher education since his wedded bliss began a decade ago, he gets worked up a bit in his declarations about how ridiculous and wasteful university training is. I can’t say I blame him. His wife is delightful, but I can just picture some of the conversations they must have had over the years regarding aesthetics, etc. She also utilizes feng shui in her interior design work. She and my brother remain close, so apparently they haven’t talked too much.
Two brands of foul air seem to accompany certain takes of postmodernism. Burt, your quote provides a fine example of obscurantism to degrees of humorous absurdity. The other kind is the person who visualizes and describes—obscurely, of course—patterns of rape within everything male, or it attacks science with extremes of vapidity that even a retarded child would mock. Neither type of foul writing (both of which seem to me to be true obsenity) can be taken seriously for long, can they? Maybe the current system of “publish or perish” naturally equates to immense amounts of unbelievably expensive nonsense. I know you’ll do your part, Burt, by reacting in your book against postmodernism’s garbage. Maybe that will encourage others to publicly do so, as well. Some of these people should be sued for abuse of intellectual power, if only it were practical to do so.
Other postmodern ways can be extraordinarily useful, it seems to me. But yes, obscenity can be found at the extremes of narrative generation.
