Best arguments against post-modernism?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky's point is that if it can't be explained clearly then it's not worth taking seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]do you guys consider that to be a valid criticism?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is valid criticism if it ultimately mean that whatever theory you propose is obfuscated by trying to cover your back from 'everything', a typical postmodernistic fallacy - but it isn't the postmodernistic ideal.

The postmodernistic ideal is more of accepting that your truths are often ultimately subjective, sometimes simple and may not always cover reality very well.

Chomsky is ultimately a structuralist (the belief that you can learn about a system through studying its structures and the relationship between them), something which is often rejected by postmodernists because whatever structures you perceive may be a subjective perception. (For instance if we as 'westerners' study some unique Papa Ny Guinea culture, we may see structures that aren't there, miss structures that are there) So it should be noted that he has some 'beef' with them.

[qwnu]

Since you read the wikipedia article on postmodernism, you probably saw the link to the Sokal Affair, which seems to me to be a pretty strong indictment of the whole field:

[ QUOTE ]
The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a pseudoscientific paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

[/ QUOTE ]
Sokal's paper on the hoax is here.

[David Steele]

Also worth reading is Sokal's book Fashionable Nonsense web page. It is on the general abuse of science in PM writings.

D.

[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you read the wikipedia article on postmodernism, you probably saw the link to the Sokal Affair, which seems to me to be a pretty strong indictment of the whole field:

[ QUOTE ]
The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a pseudoscientific paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

[/ QUOTE ]
Sokal's paper on the hoax is here.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't get it. Just because you fool some editors of a magazine that believes in PM, that doesn't mean the entire field is worthless. Also, maybe the editors published it, because they knew it would create more awareness of postmodernism and cause more people to question what they believe.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since you read the wikipedia article on postmodernism, you probably saw the link to the Sokal Affair, which seems to me to be a pretty strong indictment of the whole field:

[ QUOTE ]
The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a pseudoscientific paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

[/ QUOTE ]
Sokal's paper on the hoax is here.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't get it. Just because you fool some editors of a magazine that believes in PM, that doesn't mean the entire field is worthless. Also, maybe the editors published it, because they knew it would create more awareness of postmodernism and cause more people to question what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

the only thing more ridiculous than their publishing the paper was their explanation of why they did it.

luckyme

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. Just because you fool some editors of a magazine that believes in PM, that doesn't mean the entire field is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not a magazine, it was an academic journal edited by practitioners of the discipline who are supposed to be able to tell the difference between a contribution to their field worthy of publication and gibberish. They couldn't. Need I remind you of the remarks you quoted from Chomsky?

[TomCowley]

A belief in something with predictions that can never be falsified is faith. A belief in something that doesn't even make predictions, falsifiable or not, is a waste of time. A belief in something that you can't explain well enough to know if it even makes predictions or not is just plain stupid.

[bunny]

I've tried to argue against postmodernists, but have always run into the problem that when I ask them "What is postmodernism?" they are unable to help me. It makes it hard to argue against if it cant be articulated.

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. Just because you fool some editors of a magazine that believes in PM, that doesn't mean the entire field is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's be clear. This is not a magazine, but rather an academic journal, published quarterly by the Duke University Press.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the entire field is worthless. I have nothing against sociology and cultural studies, PM literary criticism, etc. But a lot of PM academics rest their theories on a foundation of hostility toward science and reason. I think this is problematic for obvious reasons.

If an academic field is so disorganized and undisciplined that a work of self-indulgent nonsense can be mistaken for a legitimate academic work, I think this is strong evidence that there is a problem with the field.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, maybe the editors published it, because they knew it would create more awareness of postmodernism and cause more people to question what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but either the editors knew the paper was nonsensical, or they did not. Neither alternative is very appealing.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky's point is that if it can't be explained clearly then it's not worth taking seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

His point is that some of the top practitioners are frauds. They make something sound profound because it is written so densely no one can understand it, but when closely interrogated, the arguments are either trivial or smoke.