Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

physics.nyu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#41

Post by silentbicycle »

abstractbill wrote: post #5

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... I'm having a hard time believing this can be anything other than satire.

Using magical thinking to reason about scientific phenomena sounds just as out of place as using the scientific method to judge art.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#42

Post by Estragon »

aheilbut wrote: post #18
Estragon wrote: post #7

There's a lot of crap in postmodernism, probably more than in other disciplines, because it recognizes every framework of inquiry as contingent, and this can be abused to excuse sloppy inquiry. But the fact is, there's crap in every discipline. Have you seen the CS paper generator[1]? Have you read "Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees"[2]? Sokal et al. acted in bad faith by cherry-pickin…

Just curious - what's the problem with [2]? I only skimmed it, and I see that there is some controversy, but it seems pretty harsh to lump it together with [1]...

what's the problem with [2]?

It tries to draw conclusions about the relative divergence times of different genes based on degrees of sequence similarity. This evidence is extremely weak, as there are much more likely explanations for the observed patterns of sequence variation, such as a shift in the selection pressure on a gene down the chimp/human lineage, for instance. Despite this weakness, they chose to highlight the sensational conclusion that human and chimp ancestors must have swapped genes through mating long after the presumed speciation time. This was irresponsible, because it caused a widespread public sensation when the paper came out.

it seems pretty harsh to lump it together with [1]...

I'm not lumping them together. The common characteristic is that they're both garbage. The conclusion of [2] is a subtler form of it but not to an evolutionary scientist: the problem with it was immediately obvious to me and many others as soon as it came out. And it's a more serious corruption of scientific discourse because it's a Nature article. The data the analysis was based on has merit, though.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#43

Post by Estragon »

ewjordan wrote: post #29
Estragon wrote: post #7

There's a lot of crap in postmodernism, probably more than in other disciplines, because it recognizes every framework of inquiry as contingent, and this can be abused to excuse sloppy inquiry. But the fact is, there's crap in every discipline. Have you seen the CS paper generator[1]? Have you read "Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees"[2]? Sokal et al. acted in bad faith by cherry-pickin…

Just to take on [1], the difference between computer science papers and the postmodern papers that involve physics is that while both may seem unintelligible to someone unskilled in the field, real computer science papers actually mean something if you know the terminology. Whenever postmodernists venture into areas where scientists can competently evaluate what they're talking about, the verdict is that they spew ab…

There are two aspects to this. Firstly, postmodernism hardly concerns itself with venturing into scientific arenas at all. The endeavors which Sokal et al. deride are not representative of postmodernism as a whole.

Secondly, while I haven't read the papers from which Sokal et al. take their examples, and don't know what they were about, I am certain that they're not trying to contribute to scientific knowledge in any conventional sense. I gather from a friend who studies this stuff that Irigaray was playing with the language of scientific discourse in some way. I haven't looked into it further. Some of the stuff Sokal derides certainly deserves it. One of his examples is where Irigaray's work is used to justify sloppy thinking about feminism in science education. That is definitely problematic and deserves to be dismissed out of hand. But generally speaking, Sokal picked out these quotes without clearly explaining their context and intent, and that seems problematic, too.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#44

Post by IsaacL »

crux wrote: post #17

I am generally aware and wary of the hackerish tendency to deride mightily any intellectual undertaking or material that doesn't triumph, confirm, or conform to their strictly rationalist view of the world and its every corner. I find it boorish and stifling. More to the point, I have some incredibly intelligent friends who have spent a good amount of time with Deconstruction (not identical with Pomo, of course) and…

Agree massively. If you read up on some of the ideas behind philosophy, it makes a lot of sense as a "philosophy of the modern age". Of course, there's a lot of garbage ideas in there as well, but it's worth at least reading up on the basic ideas behind it, rather than just lol'ing at some cherry-picked quotes.

I find McLuhan idea's about the role of media within society interesting, and very relevant to any working with Internet-related projects. The same could be said for a lot of postmodern ideas, which seem to partly revolve around the fact that the changes wrought by modern technology question the foundations of things like psychology, society, gender and so on.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#45

Post by knowtheory »

I think the most frustrating thing about this particular article and the way it's presented is the fact that this is, in essence, a literature overview/summary by Dawkins. Very little of the content involved in the piece is original thinking by St. Dawkins.

He's not disrobing anyone (perish the thought), he's reporting on Skoal & Bricmont disrobing people.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#46

Post by IsaacL »

crux wrote: post #17

I am generally aware and wary of the hackerish tendency to deride mightily any intellectual undertaking or material that doesn't triumph, confirm, or conform to their strictly rationalist view of the world and its every corner. I find it boorish and stifling. More to the point, I have some incredibly intelligent friends who have spent a good amount of time with Deconstruction (not identical with Pomo, of course) and…

Agree massively. If you read up on some of the ideas behind philosophy, it makes a lot of sense as a "philosophy of the modern age". Of course, there's a lot of garbage ideas in there as well, but it's worth at least reading up on the basic ideas behind it, rather than just lol'ing at some cherry-picked quotes.

I find McLuhan idea's about the role of media within society interesting, and very relevant to any working with Internet-related projects. The same could be said for a lot of postmodern ideas, which seem to partly revolve around the fact that the changes wrought by modern technology question the foundations of things like psychology, society, gender and so on.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#47

Post by crux »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #33
crux wrote: post #17

I am generally aware and wary of the hackerish tendency to deride mightily any intellectual undertaking or material that doesn't triumph, confirm, or conform to their strictly rationalist view of the world and its every corner. I find it boorish and stifling. More to the point, I have some incredibly intelligent friends who have spent a good amount of time with Deconstruction (not identical with Pomo, of course) and…

In the case of Derrida, I'd recommend you take a look at Arkady Plotnitsky's article "But It Is Above All Not True": Derrida, Relativity, and the "Science Wars" , in the journal "Postmodern Culture" (unfortunately now behind a paywall at MUSE). The short version: Sokal (and those who follow in his footsteps) cherry-pick their quotes, and then refuse to read them in any kind of context whatsoever. To think that this h…

There is a plaintext version of the Plotnitsky article, and I think it addresses the Dawkins article so directly (though it was published one year earlier) that it bears a direct link here: http://www.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.197/plotnit...

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#48

Post by anatoly »

xtho wrote: post #27
abstractbill wrote: post #5

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... I'm having a hard time believing this can be anything other than satire.

At a certain point in history, those sentences were capable of initiating a new way of thinking that was impossible before. 30 years later, Mr. Dawkins enjoys himself beating a dead horse.

Precisely. You could say that those sentences filled a much-needed gap.

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#49

Post by anatoly »

ojbyrne wrote: post #13
abstractbill wrote: post #5

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... I'm having a hard time believing this can be anything other than satire.

I sort of dread the idea of defending post-modernism, but here's my opinion. There are some interesting ideas, but unfortunately it's become buried under reams and reams of mediocrity. But that's science, and that's how science has worked for a very, very long time. In the long run the mediocrity gets stripped away, and we're left with the interesting ideas. Phlogiston dominated scientific discourse for far longer th…

Postmodernism isn't science. You're right in that the mediocre stuff will fade and the interesting ideas will remain. Yet I have two counterpoints to offer. First, will postmodernism leave lasting ideas at all? Has its skepticism towards language, for example, led to anything new over what was given to us by Wittgenstein? Second, even if all the dross fades and disappears, isn't it a shame about all those years when it dominated humanities and much of philosophy? What kind of genuinely interesting ideas were never explored because of that domination?

Re: Postmodernism disrobed by Richard Dawkins

#50

Post by randallsquared »

anatoly wrote: post #48
xtho wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a certain point in history, those sentences were capable of initiating a new way of thinking that was impossible before. 30 years later, Mr. Dawkins enjoys himself beating a dead horse.

Precisely. You could say that those sentences filled a much-needed gap.

I do not often literally laugh out loud while reading HN. Today, I did. :)
Post reply on HN