Posted on 01/03/2011 5:00:40 PM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi
The occasion was something they called their “Postmodern Science Forum.” I took it as a good sign that they were not allergic to the word “postmodern,” and I launched into a brief history of the term as it migrated from architecture to literature to philosophy to popular culture–before getting down to the real business at hand, a discussion of the influence of T. S. Kuhn’s 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the humanities. Kuhn, I said, had shown us that scientific knowledge was not cumulative, however much it appeared so in retrospect; rather, it proceeded by way of upheavals in which a new worldview displaces the old. But had Kuhn thereby licensed a kind of shallow relativism in the humanities, where we can talk about “paradigm shifts” and “incommensurabilities” without any reference to the natural world of oxygen, Neptune, and X-rays (to take some of Kuhn’s most illustrative examples from the history of science)? Had we read Kuhn backwards from Paul Feyerabend’s Against Method, a far more anarchic account of scientific research, concluding that scientists were just as irrational as everyone else, and that therefore both God and Science are dead, and everything is permitted? And when we claimed to be doing “science studies,” did we know what the hell we were talking about?
For some of my interlocutors–and they were a very lively bunch, full of great questions, random expostulations, and a few moderately hostile interruptions–the short answers to these questions were yes, yes, and no. They were willing to cut me some slack, not only because I was nice enough to visit them but because I took my own examples from the history of astrophysics, about which I know an elementary thing or two; but they were not so kind about some of my colleagues in the humanities, who, they believed, were overstepping their disciplinary bounds and doing “science studies” without any substantial knowledge of science. A couple of physicists had clearly read Paul Gross and Norman Levitt’s then-recent book, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, a free-swinging polemic against science studies, feminism, Jeremy Rifkin, jargon, and much more, and they were mightily pissed off about this Andrew Ross fellow, who had written a science-studies book, Strange Weather, which he dedicated to “all the science teachers I never had. It could only have been written without them.
. . . .
And then, the next year, the Sokal Hoax happened.
Social Text Gets Punk’d
What, you ask, was the Sokal Hoax? While I was chatting with my colleagues at the Postmodern Science Forum, New York University physicist Alan Sokal, having read Higher Superstition, decided to try an experiment. He painstakingly composed an essay full of (a) flattering references to science-studies scholars such as Ross and Stanley Aronowitz, (b) howler-quality demonstrations of scientific illiteracy, (c) flattering citations of other science-studies scholars who themselves had demonstrated howler-quality scientific illiteracy, (d) questionable-to-insane propositions about the nature of the physical world, (e) snippets of fashionable theoretical jargon from various humanities disciplines, and (f) a bunch of stuff from Bohr and Heisenberg, drawing object lessons from the uncertainty at the heart of quantum mechanics. He then placed a big red bow on the package, titling the essay “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” The result was a very weird essay, a heady mix–and a shot heard ’round the world. For Sokal decided to submit it to the journal Social Text, where it wound up in a special issue edited by Ross and Aronowitz on . . . the “Science Wars.” Yes, that’s right: Social Text accepted an essay chock-full of nonsense and proceeded to publish it in a special issue that was designed to answer the critics of science studies–especially, but not exclusively, Gross and Levitt. It was more than a great hoax on Sokal’s part; it was also, on the part of Social Text, one of the great own-foot-shootings in the history of self-inflicted injury.
Did you, in fact, read the article you posted? It’s a leftist screed that declares the greatest crime of the Sokal Hoax was that it prefigured the use of relativistic arguments by right-wingers to attack “progressive” science. Not exactly a “defense” of Sokal or the most logical interpretations of his Hoax...
Here is a debate between David Horowitz and Bérubé:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=8990
Here is a sample of Bérubé from the linked article:
FP: Prof. Berube?Berube: The American right needs to dissociate itself from:
-- the torture and murder of random Iraqis and Afghans
-- its support of South African apartheid
-- its support of violent, ultrareligious homophobic patriarchs in the US
-- its support of violent, ultrareligious homophobic patriarchs abroadUntil it does, I'm going to persist in thinking that its recent endorsements of “freedom” are hollow and meaningless.
Yes, yes I did read the article. It does a good job of outlining the fact that progressives use science towards their own ends and the pitfalls. I don’t have to agree with the conclusion to find an article to be interesting. Note that the conclusion is unresolved. That is, the author thinks advocacy science should be used as a tool by progressives but they can’t get more people to buy in.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but as long as it’s discussing the partisan use of science to further political ends, I am trying to promote a scientific theory of politics, and I think people discussing this topic might find it interesting. I have written a book, highlighting what I believe is the actual means by which politics evolved. Don’t buy the book. It’s not even available yet, it’s almost 700 pages long, and every important aspect of the theory is on my Freeper Profile page for free.
If my theory is correct, a lot of Liberal imbeciles, who try to bend science to support their Liberal agenda, will be livid, because this theory will show how all of those feelings which we Conservatives feel, may actually have a root in reality, and reflect a genuinly contemptible aspect of the Liberal’s nature, and their selfish evolutionary purpose.
If anybody has the urge, please visit my profile page, and see if the theory makes sense to you. If it does, please spread it around. I believe it is correct, and even better, I think if science adopts it widely, it will be a real thorn in the side of Liberals.
Happy New Year!
Although I prefer the simpler explanation that Satan is the Prince of this world, and liberals, and other human excrescences, are his subjects.
Chris Mooney wrote a couple of books recently (and my libinlaw gave me one for Christmas - thanks a bunch) about how political conservatives are opposed to science. My libinlaw thought we as homeschoolers “needed” to read these books in order to “balance” our teaching.
All they are about is a political, anti-Christian screed hiding behind a bemoaning of “scientific illiteracy” in America.
No, homeschoolers kick ass on all tests, including science tests. The left is just bemoaning that we aren’t allowing them to advance their worldview in “science” education.
That which is postmodern is not science.
That which is science is not postmodern.
What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?
You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”
— Robert A. Heinlein
The left will oppose any decision that you may frely make, about anything.
Decisions are their job.
Note the lack of the sarcasm tag. this is the way they think.
As an experiment, send your Libinlaw the address to my FR Profile page, and ask what he thinks about the science there.
For me the best part of this theory was turning science on the Liberals.
The left opposes freedom, because when we are free, we will compete with each other, guided by our natural competitive urges. Thus you should not be free to make decisions. When you do make a decision, it may be a good one, and yield you success, which the Liberal then must rectify by taking your success, and giving it to someone else, who didn’t decide as well as you.
It is all about competition. We evolved to engage in it, and the Liberal evolved to thwart it. We evolved responsibility, to accept the outcomes of our free competitions, whether good or bad, and the Liberal evolved to hate everyhting about such a scenario.
I skim-read your profile page - there’s a lot of stuff there.
And, though I found it to be an entertaining and interesting theory paralleling liberal psychology, we see the world from completely different base assumptions.
Unless I missed some hidden satire, you approach the cuttlefish and the liberal from an evolutionary assumption,
and my perspective would be from the biblical worldview.
Basically, the liberal is of the people mentioned in the bible who “invent new ways of doing evil” and “celebrate those who sin”. They also hate anyone that doesn’t approve of their way of life and seek to destroy any resistance to their ideology. They hate God and anyone that follows His laws.
I viewed this article a week or so ago from a link at 3QuarksDaily. That's a great site for some interesting links ... hidden among a haystack of liberal silliness.
I agree with you that the article has some interesting things to say, even if the conclusions may not be entirely firm or valid.
There are individuals who work hard to get into positions such as the CEO of a large corporation. Up to this point they appear to be bold competitors.
However, if they find that the system they are in rewards bribes to government officials more than increased R&D, sales, marketing, etc. then they do the rational thing and expend their precious profits on securing legislation that puts them one up on their competitors.
It is a win-win for these CEO's as their company profits soar while their workload goes down since their competitive advantage is now locked-in by their government stooges.
They may even finally have time to do a bit of cross-dressing at those orgies they've been invited to but were never able to attend.
Happy New Year to you too.
I understand that what is on your page is a summary. To me, what would add objective credibility is fewer assertions, fewer arguments by analogy and more references. I understand that a social science argument does not come by proof but I’m used to a more solid foundation and clearer logic than that typically seen in the social sciences.
Your post seems to go out of it’s way to take an entirely objective tone. However even Progressives know that is a lie (as did the author of the article above) we choose to study some things and test some theories according to our intuition / judgment. That judgment is not objective. It is personal and comes from our own motivations.
The nouns you choose give your argument away. I’d suggest finding some references that make similar arguments and use their words. It would be even better if you chose someone who comes to a completely different conclusion. Also, make arguments that are referenced or can be tested. For instance, come up with an objective definition for each type and suggest putting the two groups through some tests like the Ultimatum Game or the Dictator Game. The data will scatter more than you are comfortable with. I think the choices made by God’s ultimate creation will prove to be a bit more complex than those of the cuttle fish.
I view the world through a mixture of science and God. In short, I view God as the ultimate scientist, and assume His Creation abides by scientific rules.
My position is we can view the world scientifically, with the Bible as an owner’s manual. Maybe it doesn’t give us a blueprint of the carburator, or a complete electrical schematic, but it tells us how to drive the car. I think both of our views lead to the same conclusions, even if we differ slightly on the strict Creationist issue.
That is complex, and depends on the individual’s perceptions of their situation. If they are trying to oppress those below them by seizing unfair advantage, then they are engaging an Anticompetitive oppression. If their view is that they are competing with other companies doing the same thing, then it’s different.
My view is the Competitor has to be viewed in terms of their Competition. Do they welcome free competition designed to better the system they are operating in, or do they selfishly subvert the system for personal advantage, at the expense of the system’s integrity?
It could get worse. If I viewed us as being in a fight between the Competitors and Anticompetitors, and I subverted the Capitalist system to gain funds to crush Anticompetitors and then re-establish freedom, what would I be?
Don’t carry the analogies too far. These are generalized aspects of psychology, which present in extremes in both Parties, and guide the rest of the populace to follow them.
As for objectivity, in the beginning of the book, I say I am a Conservative who holds Liberals in extreme contempt (exact phrase). However I then, as the book goes on, explain why my psychology evolved the urge to hold their's in contempt, and why they will feel the same for me. What leaves them screwed is that the majority of the species will hold my values, for reasons I will speak of next.
Yes I chose partisan nomenclature. But this qualm misses a point I make in the book. We evolved faster than every other species because we are a Competitive species. We even drive to a stadium, and expend money to watch others compete. As a result of our status as a Competitor species, we hold the values of the Competitor psychology (and the group competitor, or "Warrior" psychology) in esteem, as a whole(Hence why "Warrior" is viewed positively, and as partisan here). Thus I chose terms which would appeal to this "Competitive Warrior" psychology. Since we are a partisan species, designed to favor the Competitor, the use of these terms is not inappropriate, since they are terms the majority of the species will appreciate. A murderer is a partisan term, but we do not object, because the term recognizes he has transgressed against the values of the species. That my terminology will humiliate Liberals reading it, enthuse Competitive Warriors, and affect the perception of the theory in a way I would like to see it affected, is all the better.
I’d suggest finding some references that make similar arguments and use their words.
In the book's section on scientific substantiation, many footnotes are simply quotes, word for word from other papers, but the main case I make is more genetic/biological. I am aware of no similar theory on the origin of Politics, which bifurcates the species into two psychologies, separated by evolutionary strategy.
It would be even better if you chose someone who comes to a completely different conclusion.
A whole new theory, never before proposed, on the origins of the motive urges which produce political ideology, the theory is probably correct, it could be historic, and I'm going to hunt down some Liberal imbecile existing in intellectual obscurity in the social sciences, who didn't even come close to perceiving this, and let him name everything? Yeah, Right. Any idiot who can't see where I'm going, and understand it with my nomenclature - I could really care less if he approves.
You're missing the point of my work. If I am right, we are at war with the other side, as surely as if it was open warfare. And if they get control, it will be. Think Stalin. I have a credible theory which explains, step by step, how the left is everything contemptible we have assumed them to be, and explains how we can prove it with hard science like Functional Neuroimaging. And I'm going to water it down with non-partisan terminology, courtesy of some Liberal idiot no one has heard of, to blunt the blow?
As for the scatter, you are right, there is no clear demarcation among individuals, as with the Cuttlefish. Truth be told there may not be a clear demarcation among the Cuttlefish - maybe a Competitor occaisionally becomes a transvestite after he loses. But that misses the point. I never said every individual would abide by the theory clearly. What I do maintain is, Gun ownership, and uniformly oppressive gun laws are Competitor/Anticompetitor strategies. Capitalism/Marxism is a Competitor/Anticompetitor paradigm. National Security, National Appeasement, same, just at the group level. Sexual Discriminance and Monogamy/Sexual Promiscuity, same. Go down the list, and you will find not only that every issue fits the Competitor/Anticompetitor psychological paradigm, but that all of the issue positions tend to travel together as well. Liberals who are promiscuous will probably want high taxes, support Gun control, and support Environmentalism as a means to attack Capitalists. Will they support that new treaty which hogties us on Missle Defense? Yep. Do they oppose us just napalming all of Al Qaida, on "humanitarian grounds"? Yep. Would a Conservative? What about torturing a terrorist to save an American? Conservative Competitive Warrior yes, Anticompetitive Liberal Appeaser, no. All these urges, and they all align. It is crazy to pretend that this is not the underlying force driving them.
As I see it, you are desperate to be perceived as objective by your peers. You want people to view your "science" (I'm guessing by this you are not biotechnical) as objective. The truth is, there is no such thing. We are all affected by these urges. I went with it, and when the model supported the feelings the Conservative urges imbued me with, and better yet, showed a viable explaination for why Liberals are traitors, I went with it. Does that mean I'm not right, and Liberals are actually for a fierce group competition ethos in warfare? I don't think so.
Right, wrong, good, bad, these perceptions are outgrowths of our evolution. Hate the traitor? It is because you are a Competitor, you are designed to better the species through honest group competition, and the traitor is an Anticompetitor seeking to upset that competition. Like fairness in games? Hate cheaters? When you saw a promiscuous girl, did you say she was the girl for you? All of those stimuli are related to the Competitor/Anticompetitor paradigm. There will actually be Anticompetitors who will sympathize with, and even like the traitor. There will be cheaters who see a cheater and laugh. There will be guys who see a girl who cheats, and want to cheat on her.
Just out of curiosity, suppose you were to play a Dictator game, where the Responder was blinded to the identity of the Proposer. Play it at a Moveon meeting. Now try some Liberal media types. Now play it with two members of the same Special Forces outfit. Now go back in time and try two fellow Samurai. Might there be a difference between the outcomes of the Warriors vs the Appeasers? I should note, both Dictator and Ultimatum have nothing to do with Competition, and should be relatively unrelated to these urges, except where Loyalty was imbued by warfare. As for testing, I go through the full range of functional neurimaging studies which need to be done, show what neural structures current research indicates may be invovled, and highlight real life examples of the Liberal in debate, and how predictions I make about how to manipulate them psychologically pan out. I even discuss pathogens which can produce Liberalism, if my thesis on the neurochemistry of Liberalism is correct, and I discuss a plethora of other studies which should be done. Also, the book does not say, here is how it is. It says, here is how it is most likely to be, and here are the studies which should prove it. I would do the work myself, but I am in another discipline, and too absorbed by my work to get on this.
While we are on the subject of biases, understand, if you can't feel the force, you won't know it when you see it. My impression is you are not in a discipline with solid rights and wrongs, provable by experimentation. All of your credibility is how forcefully you demonstrate your lack of bias, and confer respect on the ideas of your peers. Since I am out of my field here, and experimental failure is the only bias I can't afford in my day job, I get to be biased here.
If my theory is correct, and I believe it is, there is a right and a wrong - it is defined by how we evolved. And due to this evolutionary history, the Liberal is provably wrong, by this metric. I feel no intellectual need to act otherwise. If the basis of my theorem is that I have here a mechanism which dictates exactly why and how the Liberal exists as a cowardly traitor, must I sugarcoat it? Especially if it will have the effect I am seeking if I do not?
But thanks for the input. As you can see, I'm a live one.
“As I see it, you are desperate to be perceived as objective by your peers. You want people to view your “science” (I’m guessing by this you are not biotechnical) as objective.”
I wouldn’t use the phrase desperate. I’d rather use “humble”. I humbly ask that you not ascribe view to me which I do not have.
I think you missed one point I made. Logic is objective. Assumptions are subjective.
Moral Psychology is a well worn field. Surely you could find something from it that would be useful rather than inventing an entirely new theory that is “probably” correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.