Postmodernism: Denial of Facts and of Objective Reality is Insincere

Spread the love

Post-modernism is a nice theoretical mind game.

  • >>“alarming postmodern implications, that is, that the truth is based not on agreed upon facts and evidence, but is contingent on narrative and point of view”.[NR]

Accepting post-modernism as a serious realistic world view is either ignorant, or insincere1. A well educated & intelligent person cannot, with honesty and straight face,  take post-modern anti-logic, anti-facts, anti-science seriously and base social science and political discourse on such baseless non-facts.

  • But Moore points out that many Italians are fighting this injustice, somehow both primitive, in its witch hunt aspect, and postmodern, in its denial of facts and objective reality.” [NR]

We cannot deal with our real world problems with an ideology that denies reality, trashes our logic and the scientific method. Postmodernism belongs with mysticism and  superstition. Post-modernism cannot create technology and science. Postmodern dogmatism utterly corrupted Social Science 4 5and its application in social sciences and politics causes mayhem 6 and death 7even for the “disadvantaged minorities” it purports to help 8.


The Poison of Postmodern Lying

Postmodernism (the cultural fad “after modernism”) went well beyond questioning norms and rules. It attacked the very idea of having any rules at all. Postmodernist relativists claimed that things like “truth” were mere fictions to preserve elite privilege. Unfortunately, bad ideas like that have a habit of poisoning an entire society — and now they have.

Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis was recently caught fabricating her own autobiography. She exaggerated her earlier ordeals, lied about the age at which she divorced, and was untruthful about how she paid for her Harvard Law School education.

When caught, Davis did not apologize for lying. Instead, she lamely offered that “my language should be tighter.” Apparently, only old fogies still believe in truth and falsehood — period. In contrast, Davis knows that promoting a progressive feminist agenda is “truth,” and she only needs to be “tighter” about her fabrications to neutralize her reactionary critics. […]

If Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to Congress that the National Security Agency does not snoop on American citizens, how can that be perjury if Clapper’s goal was to silence Obama’s right-wing critics? For that matter, if Clapper wanted to show tolerance for Islamists, how could it be a lie when he testified earlier that the radical Muslim Brotherhood was “largely secular”? […]

Part of old America still abides by absolute truth and falsity. A door is either hung plumb or not. The calibrations of the Atlas rocket either are accurate and it takes off or inaccurate and it blows up. Noble intentions cannot make prime numbers like five or seven divisible.

But outside of math and science, whose natural truth man so far cannot impugn, almost everything else in America has become “it depends.” Admissions, hiring, evaluations, autobiographies, and the statements of politicians and government officials all become truthful if they serve the correct cause — and damn any reactionary discrepancies. 

To paraphrase George Orwell, everything is relative, but some things are more relative than others.


Abolishing reason, empiric evidence, statistics, and denying facts and objective reality is one ore more of the following

  • anti-scientific, dishonest and insincere
  • stupid, ignorant
  • cunningly manipulative and misleading

  • We observed that the dogmatic Left get rid of empiricism and reason and is clearly Anti-Racism is Anti-Science,
  • Stephan Moulineux give the reason:  because Marxism falls apart with empiricism and reason
  • because #TheTruthIsRacist 9


Modernism vs. Postmodernism
[PDF]

Drake 258

Modernism vs. Postmodernism

The term “Postmodern” begins to make sense if you understand what “Modernism” refers to. In this case, “Modernism” usually refers to Neo-Classical, Enlightenment assumptions concerning the role reason, or rationality, or scientific reasoning, play in guiding our understanding of the human condition and, in extreme cases of Postmodern theory, nature itself.  Postmodernism basically challenges those basic assumptions.

Modernism (or Enlightenment Humanism)

Postmodernism

Reason and science provide accurate, objective, reliable foundation of “knowledge”

Reason and science are Ideologies in the Nietzschean or Marxist sense: simply myths created by man.

Reason transcends and exists independently of our existential, historical, cultural contexts; it is universal and “true”.

There is no universal, objective means of judging any given concept as “true”; ALL judgments of truth exist within a cultural context (cultural relativism).

Reason and human independence/freedom are inherently linked; just laws conform to the dictates of Reason. We hold these truths to be self evident…

The application of pure Reason (predicated Cartesian Radical Skepticism) disproves the universal nature of a priori  human freedom. Independence/Freedom are Western Ideologies (just like reason and science) used to colonize foreign cultures (i.e. Belgian Congo, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan) or subjugate women.

Because it is universal, Reason can help us overcome all conflicts.

Nope. Science is no more universal than is any other culture’s definition of “truth”.

Science is the paradigm of all true knowledge.

Nope.

Language is transparent; a one to one relationship between signifier (word) and signified (thing or concept).

Language is fluid and arbitrary and/or rooted in Power/Knowledge relations. Meaning is fluid and arbitrary. Meaning is “messy”.

Reason will lead to universal truths all cultures will embrace.

“…no eternal truths, no universal human experience, no universal human rights, overriding narrative of human progress” (Faigley, 8).

In sum: Truth exists independent of human consciousness and can be known thru the application of Reason.

All Enlightenment conclusions lead from this assumption.

In sum: Truth may exist independent of human consciousness but there is no objective means of nailing it down.

All Postmodern conclusions lead from this assumption.

Connotations: The application of Reason leads to a progressive movement toward civilization, democracy, freedom, scientific advancement.

The Enlightenment is prescriptive: a means of building a better society.

Connotations:  There is no objective means upon which to predicate morality and right/just governance.

Postmodern theory is descriptive of the human condition; it describes an impasse in philosophy and social relations.

Modernist Feminism:  Women are oppressed by patriarchy and can use Reason to achieve both independence and regain their “authentic selves”.

Postmodern Feminism: The categories male/female, masculine/feminine are themselves culturally constructed and/or Ideology. Gender roles are culturally relative in all cultures and contexts.

Existence of stable, coherent “self”, independent of culture and society.

The “self” is a myth and largely a composite of one’s social experiences and cultural contexts. The “self” is an Ideology.

Source: Borrowed heavily from Jane Flax, via Lester Faigley’s Fragments Of Rationality


Postmodernism is misuse of LOGIC, warped reason. See also


Darwin is RUFL*: Postmodern ‘Unnatural’ Selection Via Tenure Track and Paywalls

Postmodernist proponents are gaining ground in the West, thanks to their appropriation of inherently discriminatory measures, including securing tenure-track positions and standing behind academic paywalls, which allow them to peddle their perversions of classical scientific principles, including Darwinian evolution.

Most academic journals can only (legally) be read

It’s Official: Even Hard Science Entering New Dark Age


buying extremely expensive print magazines or web access, or being a member of professional societies and Universities that pay such fees.

The Biodiversity author and Senior Lecturer in “Aesthetics” at the University of Salerno (Italy), has devoted his career to championing the views of Jacques Derrida and his school of postmodernism. Among the innumerable flaws in postmodernist thought, besides the outright ostracization of empirical knowledge and objective observation, is its revisionist character. In Biodeconstruction, Vitale focuses a great deal on Derrida’s thoughts on biological evolution, characterizing them as follows […]

In other words, by imposing somehow a normativity for homosexual behaviour in human civilization, we can merge the desired “nervous” memory of experiencing life onto the “genetic memory” of surviving life, the ultimate goal being the abandonment of the human form for some type of post-human (cybernetic) state.[…]

In the saddest, most apocalyptic view of the future — one with no debate or dialogue at the highest levels of academia — the pernicious, nihilistic philosophy of postmodernism could wipe out the modern scientific method altogether along with the traditional culture it is rooted in. We have seen the depreciation of objective science in the service of the motherland in Soviet Russia in the form of Lysenkoism (which led to the imprisonment or death of 3,000 mainstream biologists under Stalin), and Communist China.

And we are seeing this presently in North Korea, where technological advances are being withheld from the people. This is the intrinsic danger of all ideology — it spreads like a cancer with the ultimate goal of killing its host. Postmodernism will lead to the intellectual death of the US and those who look to the West as a model.



It’s Official: Even Hard Science Entering New Dark Age

It’s not a shock that Postmodernism has taken hold of subjects such as Literature or Social Anthropology. The more subjective the subject is, the easier it is for ideology to infiltrate it. But surely quantitative science—like genetics and physics—will survive as a fortress of logic? Wrong. An article this week in The New York Times interviewed “woke” geneticists, whose findings manifestly show that race and psychological racial differences are biological, revealing them clutching at the most desperate reasons why their research doesn’t prove what it clearly does.  [Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk (and Why Geneticists Are Alarmed), By Amy Harmon,  The New York Times, October 17, 2018] Hard science has fallen to the latter-day Communists.

If someone excels in math, they excel in logical reasoning so, in general, you can expect them to possess an almost robotic ability to see through the emotion and dogma that props up Postmodernism. This may well be one of the reasons why SJWs had to make an example of CERN physicist Professor Alessandro Strumia earlier this month. [Cern physicist suspended over ‘highly offensive’ presentation on sexism in science, by Tom Embury-Dennis, Independent, October 2, 2018] […]

Feminists responded by citing female physicists who nobody’s heard of, citing random anecdotes of sexism, and twisting his words—illogical arguments, in other words. [Science doesn’t belong to men. Here’s the proof, By Afua Hirsch, Guardian, October 2, 2018]. If Strumia was less good at math, and so less narrowly focused, he would have understood that academia has now returned to the Dark Ages and you can only reason until you reach the prison bars of the new Church of Equality’s dogmas.

It’s a pattern. American mathematician Ted Hill told the infidel world of his dealings with the Church the previous month in the online magazine Quillette. [Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole, By Theodore P. Hill, Quillette, September 7, 2018] Hill had submitted a paper applying mathematics to make sense of the “Genetic Male Variability Hypothesis” (“GMVH”)—that males tend to be over-represented at the extremes, both high and low, of IQ, hence more male Nobel laureates but also more male vagrants. [An Evolutionary Theory of the Variability Hypothesis, by Ted Hill, August 2017] The Mathematical Intelligencer accepted it after peer review and it was “pre-published” online. But a vigilante group called “Women In Mathematics” accused it of sexism, a co-author was subject to accusations of “scientific racism” in his own department,

[…] [What really happened when two mathematicians tried to publish a paper on gender differences? The tale of the emails, by Ivan Oransky, RetractionWatch, September 17, 2018] […]

Like Galileo, when scientists discover the equivalent of the heliocentric universe, they will find that their publications are burnt (withdrawn from the journal) and they are ordered by their university not to teach anything about it. Or they will have to distance themselves from their own findings by asserting that though these are their findings, they are nevertheless confident in the Church’s dogmas.

This is happening especially in the field of human genetics. There, findings unequivocally show that there are genetic race differences, including in intelligence. As a result, the New York Times’s Amy Harmon [Tweet her] found geneticists whose findings manifestly show that race and psychological racial differences are biological—so that doctors must treat patients differently based on their “race”—virtue-signalling concern about the “Far Right” “misusing” their findings. […]

Because when even Mathematics departments are ideological, the Church of Equality is unquestionably running the university show. [Read the full article at It’s Official: Even Hard Science Entering New Dark Age]


Which Is Worse: Postmodernism Or Anti-Intellectualism?

[…]nobody knows what postmodernism is. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy agrees2.[…]

Yet, this nebulous concept poses an existential threat to science and technology. How so? Because postmodernism is largely characterized by a rejection of objective truth. This is antithetical to scientific inquiry.

Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), has made it part of his life’s work to fight against the corrosive effects of postmodernism. He’s back again in the pages of Trends in Biotechnology. He perceptively writes:

Postmodernism is a product of the romanticist rejection of reason and of the ‘Western guilt’ regarding tragedies such as slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, and so on, many of which are viewed as consequences of Enlightenment ‘imperialistic’ thought. A typical expression of this guilt is to display one’s repentance regarding these historical events (even if one is not personally responsible for them) with political correctness being one of its social coercive tools.

Postmodernism, therefore, explains all types of behavior on university campuses, from the widespread suppression of free speech and strange obsession with cultural appropriation to the creation of “safe spaces” and the feminist rejection of science as a sexist, patriarchal construct. Without a doubt, postmodernism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a fundamentally anti-intellectual ideology that masquerades as erudite philosophy.


Scientists Should Fight Postmodern Public Values

Dr Kuntz blames sociologists who embrace postmodernism, a cultural and philosophical movement that the Encyclopædia Britannica describes as “characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism” combined with “a general suspicion of reason.” In other words, postmodernism is diametrically opposed to everything the scientific method stands for. The professor extends the definition with his own interpretation:

Postmodernism considers that scientists cannot be trusted, and that their research must be subject to a democratic process, more precisely to a ‘participative democracy’.

This is deeply problematic when confronting activists, many of whom do not understand complex scientific topics. It is not possible for scientists to align their values with the public — let alone to invite non-experts to participate in the scientific enterprise — when a substantial proportion of the populace wants to shut science down. As evidence, Dr Kuntz cites the example of anti-GMO activists who, despite being extensively engaged by biotechnology researchers, vandalized field trials. Occasionally, anti-GMO activists mail explosive letters to scientists, too. So much for public engagement.

Dr Kuntz’s conclusion is forceful:

Postmodernism is often confused with values of respect and democracy. However, science is not a matter of democracy – it is about the application of a method, and it is an elitist activity, open to all provided that one learns and applies the scientific method. Scientists should be able to ‘reflect upon and revise their own opinion’ without injunction from postmodern political correctness.

He’s absolutely right. But he does not address how scientists can effectively fight back.


Anti-Intellectualism Is Biggest Threat To Modern Society

[Poland’s] classes, which largely focused on the hard sciences, the most popular students were the smart ones. Students looked up to their intelligent, hard-working colleagues. When she came to the United States as a high school exchange student, she found the exact opposite to be true. The smart students were the outcasts, while the popular ones were jocks and cheerleaders.

Though admittedly anecdotal, her experience isn’t unusual and seems to illustrate a larger truth about America: As a society, we never grew up beyond high school. Not being smart continues to be cool. Rejecting the collective wisdom of scientists, economists, academics, and journalists is applauded. Spurning the “establishment” (defined, it seems, as anybody with expertise on any subject) has become the new national pastime.


The “Democratization of Science”

Such buffoonery is perhaps the inevitable result of “democratizing” science. True, science should be taught to all people, but it is absurd to believe that the average person has something useful to say about it. Yet, that’s precisely what the organizers of the March for Science believe. Their website says:

If scientists hope to discuss their work with the public, they must also listen to the public’s thoughts and opinions on science and research. Progress can only be made by mutual respect.

No, no, no. That is pure, unadulterated postmodernist drivel. Scientific progress is not made by holding hands and singing Kumbaya with the local yoga instructor. Instead, it is made when scientists are allowed to investigate tough questions by rigorously applying the scientific method. From this discipline springs revolutionary technologies that change the world. While public outreach by scientists is important, asking for public input is often a complete waste of time.

Actually, it can be worse. Dr. Kuntz explains:

People willing to ‘engage’ usually have a political agenda: they are often activists, relabeled as ‘stakeholders,’ who view technology as a problem rather than as a possible solution.


Leave a Reply

Leave a Comment

Specify Facebook App ID and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Facebook Login to work

Specify Twitter Consumer Key and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Twitter Login to work

Specify LinkedIn Client ID and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for LinkedIn Login to work

Specify Google Client ID and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Google Login to work

Specify Instagram Client ID in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Instagram Login to work

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *