Re: Somewhat OT: What is Postmodernism?

On Apr 30, 2:11 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <1177911285.433868.316...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 The CDesign Proponentist <cdesign.proponent...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





I often see Dembski and others being referred to as Postmodernists.
What does that mean, exactly? Would Dembski describe himself as a
Postmodernist? I've heard it equated to relativism, and specifically
where Science is concerned, the idea that Science is an arbitrarily-
chosen method for arriving at truth, and that all other methods are
equally reasonable.

One thing that I've noticed, while briefly looking this up, is that
there seem to be a lot of anti-Postmodernism books with either a
definite anti-Left bent or (less frequently) a definite anti-Right
bent. That is, it seems that either side can be rightly accused of
embracing Postmodernism, but individual books on the subject are
extremely one-sided, consentrating only on the transgressions of the
opposing side, making Postmodernism seem like an exclusively Leftist
problem or, in other cases, and exclusively Rightist problem.

Does anyone have any better recommendations? I guess I'm more
interested in learning what it is, rather than what is wrong with it,
or right about it.

Well, criticisms of Wikipedia aside, you could start there and then read
further:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy
(To Wikipedia's credit, there is a warning about this entry, which does
come off as a bit whiny and defensive.)

The key seems to be in the introduction's conclusion: "The essential
point is that the meaning of all things is colored by subjectivity, and
that for a philosophy or ideology to pretend full objectivity is not
only deceptive but also in some cases politically abusive."

My take on it seems to be that while some people (those with skills in
research, investigation, experimentation, and critical
thinking‹scientists) are comfortable with the intellectual rigor and
objective thought required for science, a lot of people can't or won't
think that way and have invented or adopted a philosophy to justify
their mode of thinking.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is because philosophers never have to get off their butts and
accomplish anything. Taken to the extreme it is just stupidity. Ask
Wilkins, they probably have him involved in some real experiments.
You can yack about things for thousands of years and get nowhere.
Science is doing. I'm not claiming that it isn't sensible to think
before you act, but at some time you will have to act, and if you
can't do more than yack it isn't worth doing the yacking.

Ron Okimoto


.