4 ms·

That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. I

That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciology [1]. This is not science. It is just dogma and actually hostile to the principle of science as a pursuit of objective truth carried out by people of good faith. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368

foolrush 9y ago
Feel free to explore what truth is. Hint: You will end up in epistemology. It is also clear you have never read a Postmodern text in your life.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  You're confirming my statement: truth to post modernism doesn't exist as the term is conventionally defined. It is only one particular group's frame of reference and therefore only a device in pursuit of power struggles between groups. From this perspective, there can be no such thing as science, as the term is conventionally understood (the pursuit of an impartial and universal truth).
  - foolrush 9y ago
    Who do you think defined notions of truth? Scientists? Or were scientists philosophers interested in epistemology? No, not being a smart ass. "Science" as we know it today is an invention. It hasn't been around forever. It is relatively new. Yes it is political. Yes it is epistemological. Yes it is ideological. In terms of social sciences, it is far harder than we like to think. What we choose to measure, how we choose to measure it, what we choose to ignore, diversity of contexts, etc. are political and ideological decisions. If you would be interested in reading a rather dense and difficult text, Foucault's Discipline and Punish might be of interest.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      Notice how you're not actually agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion. You're simple trying to justify the postmodernist take on truth.
      - foolrush 9y ago
        You haven't read a single text that falls under the banner of Postmodern. Please stop using the term. As the other commenter has noted, you need to historcise. Continental philosophers didn't just plop onto the scene buoyed by multimillion dollar marketing budgets; the epistemology issues they raised are real. Your ridiculous claims of Marxist thought, Feminist thought, etc. betray your ignorance. So yes, I disagree with every single one of your assertions, but RTFM isn't applicable here, so I avoided stating it outright. Your valuing and clinging of random opinion over informed knowledge is at least as telling as your initial professions. You may have been able to fake it around your equally uniformed peers. Replace the term "Feminist" with "A person believing in equal rights for women" and your deeply seated, neurologically stuck repetition of misogynist statements rings clear across all communications.
        Lestrange 9y ago
        The giants of postmodernism, like Jacques Derrida and Jean-Paul Sartre, were fanatically Marxist before they became postmodernists. They themselves described their philosophies as evolutions of Marxism. Derrida for his part described his outlook as carrying on the spirit of Marxism. The philosophy very openly calls for deconstruction of all existing values and power structures, and a radical rejection of what the modernist interpreted as reason. I think you are deliberately downplaying this element of postmodernist philosophy and I don't think you're doing the discussion any favors by casting your opponents as bigots.
        foolrush 9y ago
        I don't recall ever reading Derrida as a fervent Marxist. Sartre's somewhat predates postmodernist canon. Marx would be a bit of a grandfather in deconstruction. Hard not to move forward without acknowledging his presence[1]. > They themselves described their philosophies as evolutions of Marxism. Citation needed certainly in the case of Derrida. With that said, to have a peek at J's posts. Every single message is prefaced with the rubbish connection, and by suggesting that there is some lineage to Marx is giving the individual more credit than he is due. Doubly so that it is clear he has never read a Postmodern text. Also, as I have been citing Foucualt, it might be worth noting that his view of power contrasted against Marx's. To suggest that the toolbox of Postmodern thought is all Marxism and Feminist is absolutely ridiculous. [1] In terms of critiquing capitalist thought alone it would be almost mandatory to explore Marxist thought. It would also seem that Derrida wasn't quite the Marxist cited. http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/grappling_with_specters_of_marx_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/grappling_with_specters_of_m...
daughart 9y ago
You should read a little about the history and sociology of science.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  Why? What will I learn?

foolrush 9y ago

Feel free to explore what truth is. Hint: You will end up in epistemology. It is also clear you have never read a Postmodern text in your life.

Jabanga 9y ago
You're confirming my statement: truth to post modernism doesn't exist as the term is conventionally defined. It is only one particular group's frame of reference and therefore only a device in pursuit of power struggles between groups. From this perspective, there can be no such thing as science, as the term is conventionally understood (the pursuit of an impartial and universal truth).
- foolrush 9y ago
  Who do you think defined notions of truth? Scientists? Or were scientists philosophers interested in epistemology? No, not being a smart ass. "Science" as we know it today is an invention. It hasn't been around forever. It is relatively new. Yes it is political. Yes it is epistemological. Yes it is ideological. In terms of social sciences, it is far harder than we like to think. What we choose to measure, how we choose to measure it, what we choose to ignore, diversity of contexts, etc. are political and ideological decisions. If you would be interested in reading a rather dense and difficult text, Foucault's Discipline and Punish might be of interest.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    Notice how you're not actually agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion. You're simple trying to justify the postmodernist take on truth.
    - foolrush 9y ago
      You haven't read a single text that falls under the banner of Postmodern. Please stop using the term. As the other commenter has noted, you need to historcise. Continental philosophers didn't just plop onto the scene buoyed by multimillion dollar marketing budgets; the epistemology issues they raised are real. Your ridiculous claims of Marxist thought, Feminist thought, etc. betray your ignorance. So yes, I disagree with every single one of your assertions, but RTFM isn't applicable here, so I avoided stating it outright. Your valuing and clinging of random opinion over informed knowledge is at least as telling as your initial professions. You may have been able to fake it around your equally uniformed peers. Replace the term "Feminist" with "A person believing in equal rights for women" and your deeply seated, neurologically stuck repetition of misogynist statements rings clear across all communications.
      - Lestrange 9y ago
        The giants of postmodernism, like Jacques Derrida and Jean-Paul Sartre, were fanatically Marxist before they became postmodernists. They themselves described their philosophies as evolutions of Marxism. Derrida for his part described his outlook as carrying on the spirit of Marxism. The philosophy very openly calls for deconstruction of all existing values and power structures, and a radical rejection of what the modernist interpreted as reason. I think you are deliberately downplaying this element of postmodernist philosophy and I don't think you're doing the discussion any favors by casting your opponents as bigots.
        foolrush 9y ago
        I don't recall ever reading Derrida as a fervent Marxist. Sartre's somewhat predates postmodernist canon. Marx would be a bit of a grandfather in deconstruction. Hard not to move forward without acknowledging his presence[1]. > They themselves described their philosophies as evolutions of Marxism. Citation needed certainly in the case of Derrida. With that said, to have a peek at J's posts. Every single message is prefaced with the rubbish connection, and by suggesting that there is some lineage to Marx is giving the individual more credit than he is due. Doubly so that it is clear he has never read a Postmodern text. Also, as I have been citing Foucualt, it might be worth noting that his view of power contrasted against Marx's. To suggest that the toolbox of Postmodern thought is all Marxism and Feminist is absolutely ridiculous. [1] In terms of critiquing capitalist thought alone it would be almost mandatory to explore Marxist thought. It would also seem that Derrida wasn't quite the Marxist cited. http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/grappling_with_specters_of_marx_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/grappling_with_specters_of_m...

daughart 9y ago

You should read a little about the history and sociology of science.

Jabanga 9y ago
Why? What will I learn?