Steve Fuller and the Hidden Agenda of Social Constructivism

Talk Reason ^ | 2/19/2006 | Norman Levitt

[Doctor Stochastic]

Good article. Of course, the essential equilavence of creationism with postmoderndeconstructionism has been noted here on FR. (As is the old alliance between Harun Yahya and the creationist movement.)

For those who haven't had the pleasure: Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.

Other items on Sokal's web page are also amusing.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not so weird. They have the common goal of rejecting scientific inquiry as a means obtaining knowledge.

[Sunnyflorida]

"Global warming fits the above fine."

Well the problem with global warming is more chronological. The planet is getting warmer or cooler depending when you start the clock.

[satchmodog9]

most do

[lonestar67]

Okay, I'm in:

I have not read Fuller but based on this essay I would argue:

Fuller is right
Kuhn is right
Dover decision is wrong

When one observes the hyperbolic ad hominem of the pro-evolution community its hard not to have terribly anxious feelings about the underlying science.

I am increasingly convinced that it is impossible to understand the ramifications of this debate without reading Kuhn. Ultimately, science is a rhetorical enterprise that must persuade the public. Failing to do so, many who want to take science further than this rhetorical enterprise are resorting to desperate tactics.

Even the alchemists contributed substantial valuable knowledge to the field of science. They never proved lead could be turned to gold. No amount of fraud in the scientific community such as the cloning problems in Korea introduces a measure of rhetorical humility. It is a total shaming war.


Evolution is falsifiable.

[ml1954]

Ultimately, science is a rhetorical enterprise that must persuade the public.

That's a ridiculous statement.

[lonestar67]

Interesting response.

Of course this is true. The public is composed of human beings who ultimately must be persuaded as to the truth of science. Scientists regard their studies as "objective" meaning they exist independent of whether people believe the results or not. However, science is based upon empiricism-- which is best available evidence. It is not offering absolute proofs.

The recent film "Flight of the Dodo" [not sure I have the name right] I think accurately explores the truth of my statement. Scientists need to understand how to communicate their research but they are all to often weak in this capacity. The film--made by someone who does agree with evolution-- tries to comically prod the evolution science community to take a more effective approach to communicating their studies.

[Captainpaintball]

I'm just impressed (but not surprised) that someone else was thinking about that Steve Fuller!

[phantomworker]

Thank you! Now it rings a bell.

Remember 1984 and of course, Fahrenheit 451?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

[js1138]

...it seemed almost as incongruous as when the creationists on the Kansas Board of Education had their "hearings" over the summer and they invited the Turkish Muslim activist Mustafa Akyol to speak on ID's behalf.

Said Muslim acivist registered and posted on FR to respond to something I said about him . It was a very short discussion.

[jennyp]

Really? That's interesting. Do you remember the thread? Or his handle?

[js1138]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=231410

[js1138]

Note that I was relying on Panda's Thumb. Our creationist friends were busy defending their Muslim brothers.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatrickHenry]

Recent threads that also discuss the connection between creationism/ID and critical analysis, post-modernism, etc.:

The Left’s Intelligent Design Problem by Max Borders .
False Fear Epidemic over Critical Analysis of Evolution Spreads to Wisconsin.

[Quark2005]

This thread isn't getting the attention it deserves.

I think you might have hit a little too close to home to the anti-science crowd with this one. I doubt they'll drink from this watering hole.

Nice article.

[phantomworker]

So what is "Social Constructivism" in real world terms again? ...science does not objectively define reality; rather, scientists fudge the answers to serve the existing political and social institutions (yeah right).

Thanks again for the great explanation. I am going to keep this in mind more often. I think this might be more prevalent than we realize.

[Doctor Stochastic]

One has already explicity bailed out. Creationist photophobia reappears.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

WOW! What a post!

[phantomworker]

I think you might have hit a little too close to home to the anti-science crowd with this one. I doubt they'll drink from this watering hole.

With all due respect, it could also be a little too 'deep for shallow minds'. (Wish I had an emoticon to insert here.)