But using “postmodernism” as a shibboleth is about as clever as MTG talking about Communists. And shows about as much understanding and insight.People on the left ask me how the left contributed to where we are. That's a long answer that includes "read Mark Lilla," but I'd add:
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) July 4, 2021
- much of postmodernism was and is an undermining of basic knowledge and reason
- recasting everything in politics in terms of race/gender
/1 https://t.co/mXi8hO3MpL
It is, in short, damned stupid.
I looked at the tread and the comments, what it shows to me is a conservative who has found out his side wasn't what he liked to think it was but doesn't really like the other side either so he's looking for an excuse to go back.
ReplyDeleteOne of the comments mentions the Sokol scandal in which a physicist read a comment by Paul Gross, a biologist and Norman Leavitt, a mathematician, attacking the "academic left" because they were pissed off that non-scientists (and probably some scientists) were practicing criticism of claims by scientists and the methodology they were using to make their claims. Admittedly some of the stuff that was published by people, not all of whom should have been working in academia, was kind of silly but no sillier than stuff published as science in reviewed journals - the "Sokol" article was published in an unreviewed journal that should have submitted it to a physicist for review - it was the period in which everything from the bogus science of Marc Hauser to the clear antisemitic propaganda as science of Kevin MacDonald was being published as science and that's just the a tiny bit of the science that was published. The scientists behind it didn't like their work being held up to criticism - and it certainly should have been because lots and lots of stuff sold as science gets through by inadequate review as anyone looking at Retraction Watch would know - so they did a set up job to discredit their critics.
I think the problem is that entirely too little external criticism happens in academia, not too much as those who push "Sokol" seem to feel. And a lot of the criticism, both internal and external, is superficial - as I said, way too much stuff gets published, when you do that review is bound to fail.
A recent article at Retraction Watch, Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking” was especially interesting to me because of the journals criticized four were published by Springer, which I recently slammed for publishing the scientific racist and neo-fascist Edward Dutton, but if you think that that would get the journal in question on the list of those condemned, it didn't. I'm unaware of it receiving any such critique, perhaps one that would discredit it just hasn't been gotten round to. And that's only one of the things that is found when a real critique of science is done.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things most objected to by Gross, Leavitt, etc. is the obvious point that science is done collaboratively by a set of human beings, ideally adhering to the same rules and methodology. Such a situation is bound to generate its own internal biases, orthodoxies and any host of other impediments to complete honesty and being above board. That is something scientists like to pretend their methods prevent but, as can be seen throughout the history of science taken to be science by scientists at any given time, it can't so cleanse itself, no human institution can. The churches are (only sometimes fairly) slammed for its sins and in many cases it has been far more self-critical than science currently is. I think it's just inescapably part of the human condition and to allow scientists to pretend otherwise is unwise.
Darn it, I've read another article at Retraction Watch and I'm going to be wishing I was researching a piece on this when I've got to be weeding. One of the target s of Gross et al is feminist criticism, probably more so than their cartoon of "post-modernism". Well, the article on the flood of retracted papers on Covid-19 contained an interesting bit of research showing that the increase in articles with a woman author lagged behind that of males, it speculates because the burden of care of home-schooled children fell disproportionately on women, showing a direct impact of sexism and gender (the guys freaked out over talk about gender, especially) on the most basic feature of science and any resulting bias of science.
ReplyDeleteI'd better stop reading and get weeding. This is how a years long obsession starts for me.