Is Post-Modernism a rejection of Empiricism?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Indeed.  What I fear is that some among post-modernists are moving into the "its impossible... so don't try" category.

My other problem with them is that they seemingly offer no way forward. 
I mean you’ve got this model, which is well thought out, and a strong empirical case to back up something progressive you want to do, and then here comes a post-modernist guy that completely undermines your argument by saying it’s all subjective.
Ya, you’re (meaning post-modernist guy) really good at pointing out that societal norms can often be dubious, but then when it comes to a solution, well you’re not very good there. That’s a problem in my view.

[Kalbear]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Ya, you’re (meaning post-modernist guy) really good at pointing out that societal norms can often be dubious, but then when it comes to a solution, well you’re not very good there. That’s a problem in my view.

It's a problem with philosophy in general. It has no actual solutions. Noting that humans are largely governed by their base instincts and that 99% of our decision making isn't a decision but is instead a rationalization based on what we already did is cool and interesting, but it doesn't actually offer any interesting way forward. Ultimately the difference between assuming an objective world and there being an objective world really isn't particularly meaningful to virtually all interactions, the same way that Newtonian mechanics govern almost everything that most people interact with on a personal basis every day. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

26 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

My thing with Post Modernism:
So it says societal norms can often be bullshit.
And it points to the fact that sometimes there can be problems with empiricism. Like maybe the model or data collection method was bad.  Or maybe certain topics weren’t explored because of the bias of the researchers.
Great.
But, what I want to know, is why can’t liberal humanism both acknowledge and handle these things? I think it is capable of doing it.

I mean, I think it does?  I'm with you on the extreme forms of post-modern thought.  They are their own form of anarchy, and in some ways evince a real intellectual laziness.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's a problem with philosophy in general. It has no actual solutions. Noting that humans are largely governed by their base instincts and that 99% of our decision making isn't a decision but is instead a rationalization based on what we already did is cool and interesting, but it doesn't actually offer any interesting way forward. Ultimately the difference between assuming an objective world and there being an objective world really isn't particularly meaningful to virtually all interactions, the same way that Newtonian mechanics govern almost everything that most people interact with on a personal basis every day. 

Well, isn't that why ethics rather than pure philosophy exists as an area of thought?

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It's a problem with philosophy in general. It has no actual solutions. 

No I'd say true mostly of post-modernism. Not all other philosophical traditions which say something objectively can be known.

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 Noting that humans are largely governed by their base instincts and that 99% of our decision making isn't a decision but is instead a rationalization based on what we already did is cool and interesting, but it doesn't actually offer any interesting way forward. 

Sure people often make decisions on emotion. Nobody would deny that. Shouldn't stop us from trying to stop making arguments based on theory and data. Or maybe you think Supply Side theories, promoted by Trump, is just as valid as anyone else's opinion. I'd prefer not go down that route, even if people cling to those theories for emotional reasons.

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately the difference between assuming an objective world and there being an objective world really isn't particularly meaningful to virtually all interactions, the same way that Newtonian mechanics govern almost everything that most people interact with on a personal basis every day. 

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Though we know though Newtonian physics is slightly off. However, in many cases it gives us a pretty good guide on what to do. Surely you'd prefer using Newtonian physics when building a bridge, than just guessing?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, isn't that why ethics rather than pure philosophy exists as an area of thought?

And government, and science, and engineering, and...

Don't let your kid grow up to be a philosopher, is what I'm saying.

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

No I'd say true mostly of post-modernism. Not all other philosophical traditions which say something objectively can be known.

But they still offer few solutions worth anything.

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Sure people often make decisions on emotion. Nobody would deny that. Shouldn't stop us from trying to stop making arguments based on theory and data. Or maybe you think Supply Side theories, promoted by Trump, is just as valid as anyone else's opinion. I'd prefer not go down that route, even if people cling to those theories for emotional reasons.

I think you're thinking that I'm arguing in favor of PoMo, when I'm not.

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Well, though we know though Newtonian physics is slightly off. However, in many cases it gives us a pretty good guide on what to do. I'm surely you'd prefer using Newtonian physics when building a bridge, than just guessing?

That's precisely what I'm saying, yes. That even though we know that Newtonian physics isn't accurate in some circumstances (namely, at relativistic speeds, large gravitational bodies and at very small scales) we know that it's reasonably accurate enough for virtually everyone to use on a regular basis without any particular pain. 

Same goes with the idea about, say, the virtualization of the universe. Sure, we could be in a simulation, but so what? How does knowing that change that you need to eat, or that you need to breathe? How does that knowledge do anything for day-to-day interactions with people? The answer is that it doesn't. I know about general relativity (though I couldn't do, say, a tensor equation any more) but that doesn't mean I need to use it to bounce a ball to my son. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, I think it does?  I'm with you on the extreme forms of post-modern thought.  They are their own form of anarchy, and in some ways evince a real intellectual laziness.

I'm more likely to read the TV guide than Foucault. Secondly, the post-modernist stuff I've read, makes my head hurt. I need simple sentences. 

So maybe I'm off, but I haven't seen much that says Post-Modernist believe in anything like objective reality.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

12 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Ya, you’re (meaning post-modernist guy) really good at pointing out that societal norms can often be dubious, but then when it comes to a solution, well you’re not very good there. That’s a problem in my view.

I didn't know you're such a Marxist.

Quote

Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.  (Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach) [I had to look up the English translation for that quote)

No, but now in all seriousness. As Kal pointed out, it's a general problem with philosophy.

If anybody wants a starting point for post modern/post structuralist philosophy, I think Michel Foucault's The Order of Things is a good start (maybe not as fun as Discipline and Punish, which starts with a very graphical describtion of an execution). I haven't read any Foucault stuff in English, but in other translations he is quite a good writer. Other than that his innaugral lecture The Order of Discourse is a short read, 20 pages or so.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

But they still offer few solutions worth anything.

Well I disagree. One philosophical tradition says, yes use data and theorizing. And from that I can construct arguments to solve problems. Say like raising the minimum wage. I base that argument on both theorizing and econometric studies. It seems to me that post-modernism says, forget all that. It doesn't matter.

Just now, Kalbear said:

That's precisely what I'm saying, yes. That even though we know that Newtonian physics isn't accurate in some circumstances (namely, at relativistic speeds, large gravitational bodies and at very small scales) we know that it's reasonably accurate enough for virtually everyone to use on a regular basis without any particular pain. 

Yeah, but it seems to me Post Modernism, or at least part of it says, forget about that. Forget that Newtonian may approximate the truth in some cases cause the search for truth is just a waste of time.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Notone said:

I didn't know you're such a Marxist.

I'm sure your average conservative probably thinks so. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Well I disagree. One philosophical tradition says, yes use data and theorizing. And from that I can construct arguments to solve problems. Say like raising the minimum wage. I base that argument on both theorizing and econometric studies. It seems to me that post-modernism says, forget all that. It doesn't matter.

What philosophical tradition says that? Says 'use data and theorizing'? That's not philosophy, that's science. 

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, but it seems to me Post Modernism, or at least part of it says, forget about that. Forget that Newtonian may approximate the truth in some cases cause the search for truth is just a waste of time.

As do a whole lot of other ones too - that's my point. It's all circle jerking intellectual bullshit, all the way down. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

What philosophical tradition says that? Says 'use data and theorizing'? That's not philosophy, that's science. 

Positivism? Humanism?

Just now, Kalbear said:

What philosophical tradition says that? Says 'use data and theorizing'? That's not philosophy, that's science. 

As do a whole lot of other ones too - that's my point. It's all circle jerking intellectual bullshit, all the way down. 

Yeah, but I would say that Post-Modernism departs (at least in some cases) from traditional epistemological notions that say doing science is valuable in collecting knowledge.

[BloodRider]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If we are made to understand that "reality is actually subjective" how can there ever be an objective reality to study with empiricism?

The thing is that reality, as we experience it is subjective.  The brain - as it models an objective reality around us - makes subjective interpretations of that reality.  All brains do it.  So it can be said that there is an objective reality that one can never experience directly because it has to pass through your own subjective reality.  

Now all is not lost.  Obviously, since things work in an objective frame.  I can build something and hand it to you and it will work for you even without me observing it.  So the evidence is pretty strong for objective reality.  And we, as humans, can sidle up to seeing a clearer version of that objective reality using tools and measurements and methods - basically the methodology that we call science.  

Now most days you will want to just assume that your subjective model of reality maps onto objective reality one-to-one, or really not even think about it.  You can't go about thinking about it too much, it'd be crippling.  But far too many people are not able to separate what they experience from what can be measured. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Positivism? Humanism?

The first is fair, the second arguable, but those are kind of the exceptions, and arguably positivism is indistinguishable from scientific reasoning. 

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, but I would say that Post-Modernism departs (at least in some cases) from traditional epistemological notions that say doing science is valuable in collecting knowledge.

Again, I argue that this isn't what PoMo philosophy says; it simply says that doing science is not necessarily objective, and that you should recognize that basis isn't entirely real either. It doesn't say it's worthless; it simply says it is not the Truth. 

[SerHaHa]

Quote

Things like slavery, murder, and rape and so forth. Ultimately, I'm a moral universalist and reject relativism.

OGM - do you believe that you came to believe these things are wrong without any outside stimulus?  That it just happened to be self evident to you?

If that 's the case, why do most uncontacted tribes on this planet not subscribe to the same beliefs as you do?  The Sentinelese for example - every single person who has had the unfortunate chance to end up stranded on their little island, has been both raped, tortured, and eaten, sometimes while still alive, and not in that order.  They have none of the social restraints against these things that developed societies have.

This blows a big whole in the whole "self evident" idea IMO, as they are far from the only uncontacted tribe to behave in this manner.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The first is fair, the second arguable, but those are kind of the exceptions, and arguably positivism is indistinguishable from scientific reasoning. 

Again, I argue that this isn't what PoMo philosophy says; it simply says that doing science is not necessarily objective, and that you should recognize that basis isn't entirely real either. It doesn't say it's worthless; it simply says it is not the Truth. 

If post-modernism is claiming "there is no truth" doesn't that attack the whole purpose behind Empiricism's effort to discover "truth"?

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Again, I argue that this isn't what PoMo philosophy says; it simply says that doing science is not necessarily objective, and that you should recognize that basis isn't entirely real either. It doesn't say it's worthless; it simply says it is not the Truth. 

And if it's not the truth, the point of it is what exactly? I mean, I think it's reasonable to say we may not exactly know the truth is at times, but to say, well there are no truths, then why even bother with scientific endeavors? And even if we can't always know the exact truth at all times, it would seem to me having some criteria for judging one argument to be better than another is desirable. And post-modernism would deny that such criteria could exist.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SerHaHa said:

snip

Nice to know you think Nazi Gemany is just as good as any other society.

Carry on.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Don't let your kid grow up to be a philosopher, is what I'm saying.

 

*snip*  Not a chance.  I'd like them to be productive and happy members of society.  

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Nice to know you think Nazi Gemany is just as good as any other society.

Carry on.

This theory (like a lot of them) can be taken to nihilism.  The thinking cannot stand alone.  You then have to fit it within a social construct (yes, your brain may have exploded) for it to be actual useful to real humans.  I mean, OGE, it's like the old joke about the economist, the physicist and the chemist who are shipwrecked.  A flat of tinned food washes up.  They wonder how they are going to open the cans.  The two scientists run off to do what they do.  The economist looks at them, puzzled:  "why don't you just assume a can opener."  Every discipline has this.

[Jo498]

Nobody claims that cars stop working if one does not believe in mechanical engineering. But this is neither empiricism nor its denial.

Empiricism in a narrower sense is the idea that knowledge can rather unproblematically extracted from what is given by the senses, our experiences. And that these are the main or only sources of knowledge. This position has in the last ca. 400 years usually collapsed after a generation or two of philosophizing because it encountered insurmountable difficulties.

From Locke's Empiricism you get Hume's skepticism and Berkeley's idealism. The next iteration has Kant trying to save some kind of empiricism within a framework of a priori structures of knowledge (the very thing the hardcore empiricists deny). But his also developed into Hegel's idealism.

100 years later the logical positivists (Carnap, Schlick, early Wittgenstein and others) hardly lasted a full generation before "critical rationalism" (Popper and his followers), "ordinary language philosophy (late Wittgenstein) and whatnot.

But all these strains are not what the "postmodernists" are mainly reacting to. They start with several continental early 20th century philosophers (Husserl and mainly Heidegger, with Nietzsche looming large) and the so-called Frankfurt school of marxist social philosophers (like Horkheimer and Adorno) and a few french guys (Merleau-Ponty, I think, and the linguist Saussure). I am not really sure what their main point is. It must be something different from standard skepticism about an objective world because this would be neither new nor interesting.

The little I read and understood of Foucault were rather interesting historical analyses how certain social (or societal) practices came to be regarded as "normal" or "natural", e.g. the concept (and treatment) of "mentally deviant" persons. These concrete case studies might be taken to show that "it ain't necessarily so" even when official institutionalized science, law, whatever have taken something for granted. The forerunners of such inquiries are e.g. Marx showing how what both bourgeois common sense and contemporary economic theory have taken as "natural" are actually historically contingent power structures that evolved from other historically contingent structures etc. Or Nietzsche's "deconstruction" of morals in the Genealogy of Morals.

I think it is generally enlightening to ask such questions. The problem is that for me it becomes absurd if one does not believe that the theory or reconstruction offered in place of the "official story" is not closer to the objective truth. E.g., if Marx shows how the concepts with which 19th century economists describe 19th century capitalism are flawed idealizations and the reality is far more messy and there is a historical story how both the theoretical categories and the societal structures developed etc. Marx has to believe that this is a better story than the "naive" taking property, markets etc. for granted or "natural". (And so he did, but it seems that some postmodernist who do similar things, don't anymore.) It is the opposite of skepticism. Rather it is the standard way how both in science and humanities we try to offer objectively better explanations of some phenomena.

And if one goes "deeper" than "regional" inquiries (like economics or the history of psychiatry) it really becomes incoherent if one wants to be a skeptic or relativist all the way down. Because the most general methods (like logics, argumentation etc.) one uses for one's inquiry cannot be themselves be "put in brackets". They have to be trusted as objectively valid, reliable etc. (not as infallible).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

*snip*  Not a chance.  I'd like them to be productive and happy members of society.  

This theory (like a lot of them) can be taken to nihilism.  The thinking cannot stand alone.  You then have to fit it within a social construct (yes, your brain may have exploded) for it to be actual useful to real humans.  I mean, OGE, it's like the old joke about the economist, the physicist and the chemist who are shipwrecked.  A flat of tinned food washes up.  They wonder how they are going to open the cans.  The two scientists run off to do what they do.  The economist looks at them, puzzled:  "why don't you just assume a can opener."  Every discipline has this.

Zabzie,

We got this for my ten year old son before his 10th birthday.  He's read it and loves it:

https://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-Introduction-Philosophy-Michael-Patton/dp/0809033623

He rather enjoys "graphic novel" adaptations and he really enjoyed this one too:

https://www.amazon.com/Search-Lost-Time-Swanns-Graphic/dp/1631490354

We're doomed... aren't we?