Doubting Didymus

I am currently studying both biology and sociology, and have recently been introduced to the concept of postmodernism.

Can anyone discuss with me the relationship between postmodernism and science?

I have recieved the impression that postmodernism completely rejects science as a worldview. Is this a justified impression of postmodernism, or have I got the wrong idea?

I agree with the postmodernist perspective that society is the human formative influence, up to a point, but as a student of biology I find it impossible to regect the notion that our brain, mind, and personality are shaped, at least in part, by our DNA. Is postmodernism really claiming, as I have the impression it does, that human minds are like blank slates at birth, formed into a personality by only social forces, and nothing else?

Surely postmodernists accept the notion that instinct and predispositions to certain emotions are factors that are formed by our biology? Help me out here, as I would not like to dismiss a new philosophy as undemonstrated rubbish before I have reached a decent understanding of the concept.

tronvillain

I suggest reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ASIN/0195117263/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">A House Built on Sand</a>, or perhaps <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801857074/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Higher Superstiation</a> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801856760/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Flight From Science and Reason</a>. I am amazed anyone takes it seriously. Oh, and check out the <a href="http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/" target="_blank">Sokal Hoax</a>.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Vorkosigan

David Harvey's<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0631162941/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Condition of Postmodernity : An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change</a> is a very accessible introduction to postmodernism.

I am working on a PhD in that field, Tronvillian. All I can say is I agree with you 200%.

Vorkosigan

Mageth

tronvillain: The Sokal Hoax link isn't working.

Synaesthesia

Mageth,
<a href="http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/" target="_blank">http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/</a>

That is perhaps the most comprehensive resource on that hoax on the internet. Hour upon hour worth of hilarious and infuriating reading.

Doubting Didymus

So, are my suspicions confirmed? I have too much reading to do on other subjects to purchase and read those books tronvillain suggested immediately, however I am sure I will get to them in time. For now, however, can anyone tell me, or link to something that tells me, if postmodernists really reject all science. Is this an unjustified stereotype, or an accurate portrayal? I have been aware of the sokal hoax for some time, but it's target is in a different area. The sokal hoax demonstrates that the standards of editorial and proofreading on postmodernist literature is lacking, but my question is more directed at a central tenet of the philosophy itself.

So, does postmodernism suggest that biology has zero influence on personality? or is it adopting the more sensible position that persons born with certain instincts and dispositions are then moulded by the society they find themselves in. (a position that I can certainly agree with).

tronvillain

Yes, under many interpretations postmodernism considers science to be just another way of knowing, no more and no less valid than any other way. Whether any postmodernists compltely believe this while taking advantage of automobiles, medicine, and computers is another question entirely.

Doubting Didymus

I was afraid of that. Do results count for nothing?

The Lone Ranger

Some postmodernist thinkers carry the philosophy farther than do others. The extremists do indeed seem to believe that science is "just another philosophy" and has no more validity than any other "philosophy."

I had a discussion once with a philosopher who insisted exactly that -- namely that all points of view are equally valid. I asked her why she drove her car to work each morning, instead of simply teleporting herself, if she actually believed that. She said I was being "close-minded."

Sadly, postmodernist philosophy seems to have gained a very strong influence in the fields of Sociology and Cultural Anthropology. There's a well-known story (which may be apocryphal) which is illustrative. (It's mentioned by Gross and Levitt in Higher Superstitions, as I recall.) At a particular university, a talk was given on the subject of "Changing Views about Dinosaurs in the Scientific Community" -- by a sociologist. Several biologists and geologists came to the presentation, assuming that it would be about the latest fossil discoveries and their implications. Instead, the speaker spoke of "paradigm shifts" and how changing views regarding dinosaurs were symptomatic of a new and emerging "cultural paradigm" within the scientific community -- and that the reasons for this "paradigm shift" were mysterious and unexplainable.

Finally, one old professor could stand it no longer. He stood up and asked, "Is it actually news to you that evidence matters?"

I had a vaguely similar experience myself about 5 years ago. I read a story in the New York Times about how sociologists had discovered that there was a pattern in how much attention grandparents paid to their grandchildren -- and that the reasons for this pattern were utterly mysterious. At that point, I put the paper down and muttered to myself, "well, if there's a pattern, it will be like this -- your maternal grandmother will be most concerned with your welfare, and your paternal grandfather will be least concerned with your welfare, on average." Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory, particularly as it applies to animal behavior, would find such a pattern utterly unsurprising, even expected.

So, I continued reading, and sure enough, this "mysterious and unexplainable" pattern was that, on average, maternal grandmothers seem most concerned with their grandkids' welfare, and paternal grandfathers least concerned. As it happened, I was teaching a course on animal behavior at the time, and so I told my class that evidence for a pattern had been found, and asked them to predict what the pattern would be. Almost immediately, they came up with the correct pattern, and had no difficulty explaining why it would be expected.

My impression is that if more sociologists had a better understanding of the "hard sciences" -- particularly evolutionary biology -- they'd find human behavior much less mysterious.

In any event, outright revulsion against the notion that human behavior is in any way inflenced by our genes is surprisingly common in some areas. As several authors have pointed out (e.g. <a href="http://www.prospect.org/print/V10/45/konner-m.html" target="_blank">here</a>), this revulsion seems to be more influenced by politics and philosophy than science.

Cheers,

Michael

phaedrus

Maybe this thread should help...<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000262&p=" target="_blank">Post Modernism...a Challenge to Reason? </a>