But pomo only descends so far in science - by the time you get to
crystallography you are back into pre-modern religion - the R gods!
Simon
On 7 Oct 2009, at 09:56, Kevin Cowtan wrote:
> William G. Scott wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:32 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
>>> teleports the students across the hermeneutic circle ;-)
>> (As a consequence, I recommended the postmodernism generator
>> website to the students: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ )
>
> It is easy to mock postmodernism, but it needs to be treated
> seriously. It is based on a valid set of critiques of the modern
> paradigm, some of which have arisen from within science (notably the
> cognitive sciences, complex systems and QM).
>
> While pomo reacts against the problems in the modern worldview, and
> in doing so overreacts going off into fantasy land, any useful 21st
> century philosophy of science needs to take the critiques of the
> modern worldview - which itself has been significantly shaped by the
> scientific revolution - very seriously indeed, otherwise it will end
> up being irrelevant. If scientists remain entrenched in the broken
> modern paradigm, they will be increasingly unable to communicate
> with the outside world, and the pomo paradigm shift may become more
> deeply anti-science.
>
> The failure of many scientists and scientific communicators to take
> an interest in philosophy of science and sociology have been a
> significant handicap in the countering of arguments from the
> creationists, IDers, and climate change deniers, who have
> (ironically and unwittingly in some cases) tapped into pomo rather
> more successfully. The pomo suspicion of arguments-from-authority
> threatens scientific funding and evidence-based policy making at a
> more general level.
>
> However, the modern worldview is broken, and the pomo paradigm shift
> may well be a juggernaught. We cannot stop it, we need to both
> understand it and respond constructively if we are going to advocate
> and communicate science.
>
> The hermenutic circle is one starting point in understanding where
> pomo comes from. The idea that a text has a meaning is highly
> problematic and may well be dualistic.
|