Second biggest threat to progress, after fundamentalism?

[Superman]

Trailer park trash screwed up welfare moms that have 20 kids. What do you think happens to 99.9% of those kids when they grow up? Who gets to foot the bill for them?

[Psychodelica]

I denounce that Post Modernism should be a threat to progress. Post Modernism, at least the way it's used on my institution, is not a hegemonic paradigm, it's a tool to research issues usually not targeted by mainstream science. That's where it's use lies, and that's why post modernism could be used as a tool of progress, not as a threat to it.

I'm using a discourse analysis approach in the masters thesis I'm writing at the moment. As noted above, this is for complementary purposes, not to kill off all other forms of science.

Deconstruction could be a _very_ useful tool...

[drachefly]

Yeah, it's when you have a lit-crit technique, PoMo, being used on the content rather than the presentation (which is what it was made for). I've seen one or two useful things Po-Mo had to say about quantum physics texts... but then they went on to talk about quantum physics itself. That was a train wreck. Same for sociology, philosophy, etc.

[Spyder]

I denounce that Post Modernism should be a threat to progress. Post Modernism, at least the way it's used on my institution, is not a hegemonic paradigm, it's a tool to research issues usually not targeted by mainstream science. That's where it's use lies, and that's why post modernism could be used as a tool of progress, not as a threat to it.

I'm using a discourse analysis approach in the masters thesis I'm writing at the moment. As noted above, this is for complementary purposes, not to kill off all other forms of science.

Deconstruction could be a _very_ useful tool...

Ah, excellent. I've always wanted to get this side of the story. So, how does PoMo contribute to science?

[Psychodelica]

Ah, excellent. I've always wanted to get this side of the story. So, how does PoMo contribute to science?

By analysing it. PoMo is not something that should be used to make science, at least not within the natural sciences, but to analyse science.

Whenever a scientists asks a question he/she constructs a problem. That does not mean that the problem in itself only exists within the scientist's own head, but that when he/she decides what's worth investigating and what's not that is, in fact, something he or she decides to do, out of the preference of society, the institution, or the scientists own liking. This is something that natural science has chosen to ignore to a large degree, and that is why PoMo, or at least Po Mo-inspired methods, can make a retribution to the world of positivist science aswell as the area of social science and culture studies.

Po Mo can (according to me and my tutors) not be used instead of mainstream science. As I mentioned before, it is complementary.

Deconstruction, both of terms and of specific discourses, can broaden our knowledge about how science is created and reveal norms and values within contexts where these usually are treated as a non-issue.

If taking an example in the social sciences (where I usually work, being a political scientist at heart). My masters thesis is about how the notion of "gender equality" is constructed within the framework of the European Union. I look at two countries in particular, Sweden and Great Britain, with material from both local and national levels of administration as well as the central EU documents. When using a discourse analysis approach to policy I've discovered that there is differences in both goals and attitudes toward gender equality, both between the two nations, but also between the local and national levels in each country. One example of this is that the Swedish material was much more focused on gender roles and stereotyping than the british that was more concerned with issues of equal pay and representation.

One of the countries presented the gender equality issue as a matter of freedom to shape ones life on the social level, the other had a more classical liberal stance of the issue, targeting economic areas.

This is just my most recent example of how discourse analysis and Po Mo can be used. These finding could be used in several ways, most obvious perhaps by making the policy makers aware of what they chose to work on, and what is left behind. Perhaps some of the instances I've studied will work toward a way to broaden their spectrum. (Even though this is just a masters thesis and no one will probably care much )


I understand a lot of the critique of post Modernism as a whole, but as always when discussing new phenomena (yes, compared to other scientific paradigms, it's new...) the debate tend to be all too black and white. Just because an approach is problematic in some ways doesn't mean that it's totally useless.

[Psychodelica]

Hm, CONtribution is the word in the following phrase: "can make a retribution to the world of positivist science aswell"


And sorry about the fucked up punctuation. Sometimes I get so excited I forget to check.

[Diomedes]

Ah, excellent. I've always wanted to get this side of the story. So, how does PoMo contribute to science?

By analysing it. PoMo is not something that should be used to make science, at least not within the natural sciences, but to analyse science.

Whenever a scientists asks a question he/she constructs a problem. That does not mean that the problem in itself only exists within the scientist's own head, but that when he/she decides what's worth investigating and what's not that is, in fact, something he or she decides to do, out of the preference of society, the institution, or the scientists own liking. This is something that natural science has chosen to ignore to a large degree, and that is why PoMo, or at least Po Mo-inspired methods, can make a retribution to the world of positivist science aswell as the area of social science and culture studies.

What I've run into all the time, is cases where people will use postmodernism to reject conclusions that are incompatible with their heartfelt beliefs, on the grounds that any particular study or theory is "simply a product of the time and society, and particular scientists involved and their biases", essentially an ad-hominem to allow the dismissal of virtually any attempt to gain knowledge. It does not even matter if they cannot identify a bias or how it may have significantly altered the results - it is simply assumed that it must be so.

Now, people can be biased, and research can have flaws, missed variables, poor methodology. But science is self correcting. If a case can be made that an important variable was missed, or that a methodological flaw altered the results to an unacceptable degree, then that flaw can be taken into account and new research can be conducted correcting for the earlier flaws. And if when peer reviewed no flaws can be found and no biases are apparent, the logic is sound and the findings are consistent with our observations of reality, then until contradictions are found, the findings are valid. So my question is, why is postmodernism necessary? What does it provide that the scientific method, which already contains the capacity for self corection, does not?

I cannot see that it serves any purpose except to apply, ultimately, a crippling relativism and solipsism. What purpose does it serve other than to attempt to undermine the very basis for the acquisition of knowledge?

Po Mo can (according to me and my tutors) not be used instead of mainstream science. As I mentioned before, it is complementary.

I see it as parasitic. It can only exist to criticise science, and can generate no new knowledge of it's own.

One of the countries presented the gender equality issue as a matter of freedom to shape ones life on the social level, the other had a more classical liberal stance of the issue, targeting economic areas.

This is just my most recent example of how discourse analysis and Po Mo can be used. These finding could be used in several ways, most obvious perhaps by making the policy makers aware of what they chose to work on, and what is left behind. Perhaps some of the instances I've studied will work toward a way to broaden their spectrum. (Even though this is just a masters thesis and no one will probably care much )

Can you elaborate on how postmodernism specifically allows you to do this, or what role it plays in this comparison and analysis? It seems to me that a scientific approach to the matter would be equally capable of identifying the differences in the British and Swedish definitions of gender equality. Then if necessary it is simply a matter of making the case, if it can be supported by valid argument, that the variables they have ignored are worthy of consideration. Basically, can you show me why postmodernism is needed in this case or any?

[Darth Wong]

Ah, excellent. I've always wanted to get this side of the story. So, how does PoMo contribute to science?

By analysing it. PoMo is not something that should be used to make science, at least not within the natural sciences, but to analyse science.

Analysis of science is useless unless it follows a meaningful methodology, restricting itself to logical conclusions and objective data. What is the formal methodology of postmodernism?

Analysis of scientific theories is already performed as part of the peer-review process. To argue that postmodernism is necessary in order to analyze science is a lie. What you're really arguing is that irrational methods of analysis are required in order to properly analyze science, which in turn relies upon the presumption that such methods are actually superior to the scientific method.

[mr friendly guy]

By analysing it. PoMo is not something that should be used to make science, at least not within the natural sciences, but to analyse science.

Why do we need post modernism to analyse science when existing scientific methods already do that?

[Keevan_Colton]

I wonder, is anyone else thinking of the Golgafrinchans from the Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy...where the fire development comittee was still conducting research into how people related to fire and if they wanted it fitted nasaly...

...or the group who were making great strides with inventing the wheel, but had stalled trying to decide what colour it should be.

[Psychodelica]

What I've run into all the time, is cases where people will use postmodernism to reject conclusions that are incompatible with their heartfelt beliefs, on the grounds that any particular study or theory is "simply a product of the time and society, and particular scientists involved and their biases", essentially an ad-hominem to allow the dismissal of virtually any attempt to gain knowledge. It does not even matter if they cannot identify a bias or how it may have significantly altered the results - it is simply assumed that it must be so.

Post Modernism, just as a lot of other scientific methods, can be used with or without common sense. Yes, I think that some sientific studies might be biased. That does not meen that they're useless or that they are not, in fact, right. The main thing that Post Modernism influence has done in my institutions is pressing the need for opacity. A study should be a total see through, all steps, from formulating the problem to analysing the empirical data, should be presented and recorded in such a manner that it become possible to the reader to draw their own conclusions about the results. I find this critical, since it is a way of making science stronger, not weaker. It makes the audience understand and accept a study rather than just religiously believing in it.

I'm the first to agree that there are a lot of post modern crackpots out there. But, that poeple act like morons doesn't mean that you can flush a whole approach down the drain.

Now, people can be biased, and research can have flaws, missed variables, poor methodology. But science is self correcting. If a case can be made that an important variable was missed, or that a methodological flaw altered the results to an unacceptable degree, then that flaw can be taken into account and new research can be conducted correcting for the earlier flaws. And if when peer reviewed no flaws can be found and no biases are apparent, the logic is sound and the findings are consistent with our observations of reality, then until contradictions are found, the findings are valid. So my question is, why is postmodernism necessary? What does it provide that the scientific method, which already contains the capacity for self corection, does not?

IF such science is conducted, yes. But quite a lot of scientific discoveries in less profitable areas has simply been taken for granted and never tested again. In these cases, science is NOT self correcting, unless you find that a decade or so is an acceptable timeframe for self-correcting. And, bias you say... What exactly do you mean by bias? I never think that the experiment are biased in themselves. The main part of the bias, in my experience, is when constructing the scientific problem and setting up it's premises. One famous exapmle of this is a study on brain differences between women and men conducted a few years back. It stated that there were significantly huge differences between men and women. A latter reanalysis of the material (conducted my another neuro scientitist) showed that the difference seemed to be between tall and short people, since the differences between tall men and short men were greater than the difference between men and women. (I would love to link a reference here, but all I have is a printed article)

This is more strictly what I call a bias. Even a natural scientist can look for answers and therefore find it, even though the material is open for other explanations that simply does not fit into the scientists view of the world.

I cannot see that it serves any purpose except to apply, ultimately, a crippling relativism and solipsism. What purpose does it serve other than to attempt to undermine the very basis for the acquisition of knowledge?

Because Post Modernism is a lot more that just relativism. I'm not a relativist, but I find post modern approaches useful. The first and utmost premise of Post Modernism is that the world is complex and diversified, and that our own mindsets are creating limits for how we analyse the world. I don't find this problematic at all and am actually a bit surpirsed that so many of you do.

I see it as parasitic. It can only exist to criticise science, and can generate no new knowledge of it's own.

This is simply not true. It can be used for a whole lot of more things that just critizising science. Take a look at the dissertations on literature next time you're on your local Uni Library.

One of the countries presented the gender equality issue as a matter of freedom to shape ones life on the social level, the other had a more classical liberal stance of the issue, targeting economic areas.

This is just my most recent example of how discourse analysis and Po Mo can be used. These finding could be used in several ways, most obvious perhaps by making the policy makers aware of what they chose to work on, and what is left behind. Perhaps some of the instances I've studied will work toward a way to broaden their spectrum. (Even though this is just a masters thesis and no one will probably care much )

Can you elaborate on how postmodernism specifically allows you to do this, or what role it plays in this comparison and analysis? It seems to me that a scientific approach to the matter would be equally capable of identifying the differences in the British and Swedish definitions of gender equality. Then if necessary it is simply a matter of making the case, if it can be supported by valid argument, that the variables they have ignored are worthy of consideration. Basically, can you show me why postmodernism is needed in this case or any?

Because the deconstruction of terms and notions are one of the very core methods of Post Modernism. (or, post-structuralism to be more precise. But at Post Structuralism is generally seen as a Post Modern theory, I bulk it together here) If it weren't for Post Modernism and it's impact on the scientific community, we probably would not even be interested in the construction of terms people usually take for granted. Because I can assure you that a whole of people never even gives the notion of "Gender equality" a thought, since its meaning is so obvious for themselves that they never think the thought that it might be constructed differently in the minds of other people.

My post modern approach is mainly in the creation of my problem, where I pinpoint the different notions of "Gender equality" as a field worthy of examination. In my comparison I use a mix of the two comparative approaches presented by John Stuart Mill (the famous utilitarian) and my basis for explanation is highly linked to history and the construction of the welfare state. Yes, all this can be fitted into a post modern scientific problem.


Hope I gave you guys some answers on my standing point. It's fun to discuss with people with a different view of the world.

[Darth Wong]

Explain the post-modernist methodology, and describe how postmodernism tests the validity of an idea.

[Spin Echo]

Post Modernism, just as a lot of other scientific methods, can be used with or without common sense. Yes, I think that some sientific studies might be biased. That does not meen that they're useless or that they are not, in fact, right. The main thing that Post Modernism influence has done in my institutions is pressing the need for opacity. A study should be a total see through, all steps, from formulating the problem to analysing the empirical data, should be presented and recorded in such a manner that it become possible to the reader to draw their own conclusions about the results. I find this critical, since it is a way of making science stronger, not weaker. It makes the audience understand and accept a study rather than just religiously believing in it.

I don't see how postmodernism has brought about this opacity. You seem to make these claims that postmodernism has done X, when in reality, it's already one of the underlying points of the scientific method. Peer reviewed scientific publications are supposed to give the reader enough detail that they can not only draw their own conclusions, but reproduce the experiment and see whether it gives them the same results.

IF such science is conducted, yes. But quite a lot of scientific discoveries in less profitable areas has simply been taken for granted and never tested again. In these cases, science is NOT self correcting, unless you find that a decade or so is an acceptable timeframe for self-correcting. And, bias you say... What exactly do you mean by bias? I never think that the experiment are biased in themselves. The main part of the bias, in my experience, is when constructing the scientific problem and setting up it's premises. One famous exapmle of this is a study on brain differences between women and men conducted a few years back. It stated that there were significantly huge differences between men and women. A latter reanalysis of the material (conducted my another neuro scientitist) showed that the difference seemed to be between tall and short people, since the differences between tall men and short men were greater than the difference between men and women. (I would love to link a reference here, but all I have is a printed article)

What's the title and author of the paper (web of science can do the rest)? I'd have to read this paper to believe it, and possibly not even then. There has been oodles of fMRI done that shows differences in how the brain functions between men and women. If the differences were greater between the short and tall men than between the women, how did they ever tell there was a difference based on gender in the first place? It doesn't make sense. If height had major influence on brain functions, you'd see this in the difference between the chinese studies versus those performed in say, the netherlands.

This is more strictly what I call a bias. Even a natural scientist can look for answers and therefore find it, even though the material is open for other explanations that simply does not fit into the scientists view of the world.

But a good scientist says "I think this is what is happening, how can I test it?" They then proceed to design tests that check whether their interpretation of the data is correct or whether some other factor may be at play. We don't need postmodernism to tell us that there might be other explanations for our results beyond our current theory.

Because the deconstruction of terms and notions are one of the very core methods of Post Modernism. (or, post-structuralism to be more precise. But at Post Structuralism is generally seen as a Post Modern theory, I bulk it together here) If it weren't for Post Modernism and it's impact on the scientific community, we probably would not even be interested in the construction of terms people usually take for granted.

What construction of scientific terms would this be?

[Psychodelica]

What's the title and author of the paper (web of science can do the rest)? I'd have to read this paper to believe it, and possibly not even then. There has been oodles of fMRI done that shows differences in how the brain functions between men and women. If the differences were greater between the short and tall men than between the women, how did they ever tell there was a difference based on gender in the first place? It doesn't make sense. If height had major influence on brain functions, you'd see this in the difference between the chinese studies versus those performed in say, the netherlands.

I'll try and find it and get back to you. I must be humble here are say it was a long time since I read it and I might have gotten some things wrong. But I'll get back to you.

The point here wasn't that there isn't generally differences in brain function between men and women, but that the knowledge that there is might make us pick it as the most probable explanation without considering alternatives.

[Darth Wong]

Still no attempt to explain the methodology of post-modernism, I see. You can't duck this question forever.

[Psychodelica]

Still no attempt to explain the methodology of post-modernism, I see. You can't duck this question forever.

I do make a rather extentive desciption of dicourse analysis in the other thread. I'm not ducking this discussion.