Anti-postmodernism

 

I'm an anti-postmodernist, but I'm not a dogmatic anti-postmodernist or a reactionary anti-postmodernist.  I'm not saying, "Let's go back to the good old days of modernism."  On the contrary, a commitment to modernism means a commitment to go forward.  I do recognize that there is a rational kernel to postmodernism, and I take postmodernism seriously.  I think it's worth considering postmodernists' points of view, just so long as theirs is not the only point of view worth taking seriously.

Postmodernists do not believe in science, in progress, in nature, or in truth.  I do believe in all of those things.  I believe in science, I believe in progress, I believe in nature, and I believe in truth.  But I don't believe in them dogmatically.  I believe in them, because I think there is sufficient evidence for them, as rough, vague, working hypotheses, subject to change at any moment.  The preponderance of evidence is, for now, in their favor, but tomorrow there could be new evidence that would change my mind completely, forcing me to revise my conception of science, progress, nature, and truth.  And if anyone can present me with sufficient evidence to abandon them completely, I will do so happily.  I think it's fine to question science, progress, nature, and truth, and in fact I encourage everyone to do so.  In fact, I think this is imperative - it's a life or death situation - we will not survive unless we question these things, ruthlessly and rigorously.  It is precisely by questioning them that we will make them stronger - just as you make a muscle stronger through painful, strenuous exercise.  

I believe in science, progress, nature, and truth, not as absolutes, but as tendencies - even, perhaps, to some degree, as quantifiable, statistical tendencies - tendencies that might change.  I don't think that they are infallible, or that they would have to be in order for me to believe in them.  That's not how I believe.  In order for me to believe in something, it's not necessary for it to be guaranteed to be 100% perfect all of the time.  If I say that I believe in something, that only means that right now, it seems to me that it's mostly the case - hopefully more than 50%, or, failing that, at least a plurality of the various options.  I'll happily admit that, quite often, things that are mostly the case are also partially not the case.

Now, someone might object: how could there be any evidence for truth itself?  Don't you have to presuppose the very concept of truth in order for evidence to have any meaning?  My answer: yes, you do - and that's the point.  We do presuppose the concept of truth, in order for our evidentiary process to function - and it does function.  It works.  And the fact that it does function is evidence that we were right to presuppose the concept of truth in the first place.  If we had been wrong to presuppose the concept of truth, then somewhere along the line we would have slipped up.

A postmodernist might reply, at this point: but we have slipped up.  Yes, I'll admit that there are "paradigm shifts" (ugly phrase) in science, or something like that - though I don't subscribe to everything that Thomas Kuhn writes about them.  In any case, this isn't the epic win that postmodernists may think it is.  Take, for instance, the advent of quantum physics.  The Bohr model of the atom, which uses classical mechanics rather than quantum electrodynamics, can be used to derive almost the same results for the radius of a hydrogen atom - the differences are tiny.  Similarly, relativistic effects on most measurements are vanishingly small at sea level on Earth - thus, Newtonian predictions are very close to being accurate.  In any case, it's not clear how abandoning any belief in truth would help you make more accurate measurements.  On the contrary, it is precisely because they were so dedicated to truth that scientists, highly trained in the "old paradigm," were able to improve the scientific model.  There's nothing in the history of "paradigm shifts" to disprove the existence of facts, or reality, or nature - and the existence of "paradigm shifts," far from discrediting modernism, not only provides evidence for progress - such a shift quite simply is progress.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more