Is Post-Modernism a rejection of Empiricism?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, it can be a bit scary when you start realizing that many of your beliefs (including about yourself) may not be as real as you thought they were.

But no, this doesn't make belief in a flat Earth valid. It only means such a belief is some people's reality. It shows how powerful subjectivity is and how difficult it is to convince other people that their reality is in fact not real if they refuse to adopt the same standard of proof as everyone else.

Ripp,

But claiming that there is no objective reality?  That just gives people like the flat Earthers license to claim that their beliefs are as valid as anyone else's.  It's dangerous.  

Challenging a student's views regarding objective reality as a pedagogical method for discussion of post-modernism is fine.  I think getting people to open their minds and think differently is important.  But... to then claim that objective reality is a fantasy that we all rely upon to make us feel better.  That Science and its findings are mere social constructs.  That's ridiculous.  

The Moon is orbiting the Earth whether I'm looking at it or not.  That is reality.  That is an objective fact.  

[Kalbear]

Pomo doesn't claim there isn't an objective reality, Scot. It just claims that you - as a human - probably are totally delusional about what it is. And because you are human, you are far more likely to cling to those delusions even after presented with information that shows it is wrong. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Pomo doesn't claim there isn't an objective reality, Scot. It just claims that you - as a human - probably are totally delusional about what it is. And because you are human, you are far more likely to cling to those delusions even after presented with information that shows it is wrong. 

Kalbear,

So, it claims objective reality exists... but that we can't perceive it because of the intermedation of our senses and our consciousness?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Pomo doesn't claim there isn't an objective reality, Scot. 

It seems to me though a lot of post-modernist do in fact claim this.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Don't have any strong opinion regarding the OP's title question, but I think the bit about Horseshoe Theory is bang on. Take a hard look at the tactics employed by the Far Right and compare them to the tactics employed by the Far Left, and they are very similar to one another at this point.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Don't have any strong opinion regarding the OP's title question, but I think the bit about Horseshoe Theory is bang on. Take a hard look at the tactics employed by the Far Right and compare them to the tactics employed by the Far Left, and they are very similar to one another at this point.

The very right wing von Mises seemingly rejected all empirical methods in economics. And probably rejected it's use in any social science.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The very right wing von Mises seemingly rejected all empirical methods in economics. And probably rejected it's use in any social science.

Yeah, I'm not talking about their general ideologies being similar, mostly just the willingness to commit violence in the name of their respective causes.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I'm not talking about their general ideologies being similar, mostly just the willingness to commit violence in the name of their respective causes.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Still, I'd just say that it would seem that their respective epistemological positions often end up being similar.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Still, I'd just say that it would seem that their respective epistemological positions often end up being similar.

Yeah, it's a really interesting theory that seems to bear out logically. Kind of crazy when you think about it.

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

So, it claims objective reality exists... but that we can't perceive it because of the intermedation of our senses and our consciousness?

That's at least one major PoMo viewpoint, yes. Furthermore, it rejects the notion that simply your ideas are better than someone else's in a vacuum, even if 'everyone knows' something, and relies on things like data to make things more objectively truthful.

I do find it cute how you keep attempting to attack empiricism. This is a new tack. Keep going with it. 

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems to me though a lot of post-modernist do in fact claim this.

I'm sure they do - lots of people claim lots of things - but that is not, as I understand it, the central conceit of PoMo. 

 

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, it's a really interesting theory that seems to bear out logically. Kind of crazy when you think about it.

Not in my mind; extremists of all bents (political or otherwise) end up looking very similar with very similar justifications because they end up coming to the same kinds of conclusions about what will 'fix' things - genocides of other tribes, showing fealty to their tribe and mode of thinking, rejection of data and facts that contradict their point of view. This is just a mode of human extremism in general, and has much less to do with ideology and much more to do with people sucking.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

I'm not attacking empiricism.  I think empiricism is an incredibly powerful and useful way of examining the world in which we live.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

I'm sure they do - lots of people claim lots of things - but that is not, as I understand it, the central conceit of PoMo. 

Well it well may in fact be the central message of Post Modernism. As far as  I know, Chomsky has taken issue with it.

Granted I'm not deeply familiar with Derrida, Foucault and those guys, but it seems to me that was kind of their central message. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,



 

That's at least one major PoMo viewpoint, yes. Furthermore, it rejects the notion that simply your ideas are better than someone else's in a vacuum, even if 'everyone knows' something, and relies on things like data to make things more objectively truthful.

 

Wait... I'm confused about what you are saying here.  Are you saying some post-modernists say that having data to support your contention about "Argument X" doesn't make the contention more likely to be true... or post-modernism relies on things like data to make things more objectively truthful?  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not in my mind; extremists of all bents (political or otherwise) end up looking very similar with very similar justifications because they end up coming to the same kinds of conclusions about what will 'fix' things - genocides of other tribes, showing fealty to their tribe and mode of thinking, rejection of data and facts that contradict their point of view. This is just a mode of human extremism in general, and has much less to do with ideology and much more to do with people sucking.

Yeah, from a mob mentality/tribal angle it's not surprising. At the end of the day, we're all just hairless apes, and we're not as evolved as we'd like to think. Just the required drift or cognitive dissonance that's required to get to that point if you hold a generally Lefty point of view seems more marked to me than if you come to that from a Righty point of view. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,
Wait... I'm confused about what you are saying here.  Are you saying some post-modernists say that having data to support your contention about "Argument X" doesn't make the contention more likely to be true... or post-modernism relies on things like data to make things more objectively truthful?  

At its core, PoMo is about basically questioning and being skeptical about everything. Including data, including accepted scientific facts, including basic shared premises like 'the sky is blue'. The result doesn't mean that everyone has their own viewpoint and each is identically acceptable, however. 

It challenges things like the use of language itself to describe reality, showing that language has innate subjective biases. Or how data is presented, or how data is gathered. It challenges philosophy at its base. A couple even challenged things like whether or not we are simulacra, and if so how could we ever actually tell? 

PoMo relies on more accepted, solidified facts to make things more likely, while acknowledging that the bedrock much of that lies on is not solid. 

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, from a mob mentality/tribal angle it's not surprising. At the end of the day, we're all just hairless apes, and we're not as evolved as we'd like to think. Just the required drift or cognitive dissonance that's required to get to that point if you hold a generally Lefty point of view seems more marked to me than if you come to that from a Righty point of view. 

I think that's only true in more recent times, and only in some places. The US used to have a deeply intellectual conservative viewpoint, whereas liberals were the hippy idealists whose viewpoints were based on bullshit concepts that weren't 'realistic' with respect to the world. It's harder now, as the left tends to be on the side of scientists and economists and fairly rational fact-based things (not always; anti-vacc and anti-GMO are pretty bad for the lefties, and Louise Mensch shows how easy it is for them to fall into conspiracy theory. 

It's also something you should always check yourself on; if you start seeing that you are the one with all the truth and the Other Side is the one that falls into cognitive dissonance, that's precisely when you should start reexamining your basis points. 

[OldGimletEye]

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.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that's only true in more recent times, and only in some places. The US used to have a deeply intellectual conservative viewpoint, whereas liberals were the hippy idealists whose viewpoints were based on bullshit concepts that weren't 'realistic' with respect to the world. It's harder now, as the left tends to be on the side of scientists and economists and fairly rational fact-based things (not always; anti-vacc and anti-GMO are pretty bad for the lefties, and Louise Mensch shows how easy it is for them to fall into conspiracy theory. 

It's also something you should always check yourself on; if you start seeing that you are the one with all the truth and the Other Side is the one that falls into cognitive dissonance, that's precisely when you should start reexamining your basis points. 

 Yeah, I think you should always be examining yourself when you start to think it's a good idea to bash someone's face in or blow up their place of residence or business because they disagree with you ideologically. Both sides should be attempting to check the ape, no doubt.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 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.

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

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, 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.

To be fair, being afraid of actual post modernists is like being afraid of Bakker and like three of his friends. You'd have more success fearing ByTor alts. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

To be fair, being afraid of actual post modernists is like being afraid of Bakker and like three of his friends. You'd have more success fearing ByTor alts. 

Blintz Pietort... is the proper name.