I think we should be careful about getting caught up in empty rants against the boogieman du jour, even if many people here feel like the author. It would be gr

I think we should be careful about getting caught up in empty rants against the boogieman du jour, even if many people here feel like the author. It would be great to read a serious critique and defense of postmodernism, and if someone wants to allege that it has a widespread following on campuses, and that the sort of anecdotes in the editorial are widespread and that they are connected to postmodernism, they should present serious evidence of it. If we want to read about postmodernism, let's exercise our intellectual curiosity and learn about it, good and bad. I'm disappointed in Scientific American for publishing a piece so lacking in any serious basis or reasoning. It's a rant of anecdotes; I'm not sure the author knows what postmodernism is - they seem to attribute to it 'everything liberal that I don't understand'. Such low-quality outbursts reinforce among people in the sciences ignorance of the humanities. Someone famous once said: 'Dogs bark at those whom they do now know.'