OK, tweeps, here we go. I will be responding to this shortly. Pls read with an open mind. This is a good faith perspective on benefits of postmodernism from someone who sees the problem with what many (but not he) call the postmodern left. I disagree with his take on it, ofc.https://twitter.com/AreoMagazine/status/985725463778639872 …
-
-
I think it makes common error in its perception of role & nature of science by practically conflating it with 'common sense' (a comfortable metanarrative) but opens up possibility of productive conversation between ppl who value scepticism & critical interrogation of assumptions.
Show this thread -
About the best way to do that. I, as you know, take the position that pomo is a terrible way to do that because it dismantles indiscriminately without a coherent method for evaluating worth of systems /sets of beliefs/epistemologies it targets. Critical analysis needs this.
Show this thread -
This is the difference between a radical scepticism which takes everything apart but does not allow for the existence of objective truth and a productive scepticism which takes things apart in the service of finding truth.
Show this thread -
The core of the problem with the original postmodernists was that they critiqued things on the grounds that they were metanarratives - large overarching explanations of complex phenomena - rather than on the grounds of whether or not they were true.
Show this thread -
Lyotards target "metanarratives" were Christianity, Marxism and science. It should be clear that if Christianity were true, it wouldnt matter in the slightest that it were also a large overarching explanation of complex phenomena. It would be the right explanation.
Show this thread -
The same is true of Marxism. If it explained society accurately, it wouldnt matter that that explanation were big and covered a lot of ground.
Show this thread -
Science isnt a metanarrative. Its a method but some of its theories are overarching explanations for complex phenomena - eg evolution fits that description perfectly. If the explanation is correct, it should not be suspicious purely on the grounds that it explains a lot.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think Houston as as incorrect in representing how folks use science ("only route to knowledge of the natural world") as you are in how you represent his use of PoMo ("assumes pomo only...way to [deconstruct & challenge comfortable assumptions].") Less "only" would help to fix.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, isn't just using logic good for deconstructing faulty premises?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.