Helen Pluckrose

But what is the method? Science itself is a method for undermining faulty truth claims particularly its own. Its methods are falsification, peer review, requirement for replication, rewarding discovery of error, regarding all findings as provisional. How does PoMo go about this?

The method (although diverse and I can't do it justice here) is most often associated with uncovering the ways in which language is used to hide ideology. Often applied to concepts like 'progress', which too often in modernity, actually meant domination by a particular ideology.

Yes, I know the theory. How does it show this? ( Full disclosure: I'm actually writing a book about this at the moment so I do know the ideas) How does it work? How does it show we have not progressed but simply been dominated by an ideology? What are the measures?

eg, how do they argue that the eradication of many diseases, vastly improved life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, vastly increased rights for women & ethnic & sexual minorities is the dominance of an ideology rather than legitimate progress. What would progress look like?

These first 3 aren't the things that get critiqued. The critique would sit at the junction where these improvements are not spread evenly due to structural prejudices. That form of critique is actually partly responsible for the second lot of progress examples.

They are things which are posited as 'progress' tho and undermining science probably won't help that. Also, no, The Civil Rights Movement, Gay Pride & 2nd Wave Liberal Feminism happened before postmodernism & were driven by universal liberalism which PoMo rejects.

No worries. Thanks for directing me to the article, I'll take a read and get back to you. I'm not adverse to thoughtful discussion on the topic. My issue lies with the current characterisations of Po Mo which are resulting in hyperbole and misunderstandings about the ideas.