Is the Universe “objective” if so it is possible, or desirable, to attempt to describe the Universe Objectively

[.H.]

16 minutes ago, sologdin said:

PS/PM so popular with intellectuals on College campuses to the degree that they attack hard sciences for saying that they are hard sciences

do we have specific statements made by particular interlocutors? one of the standard hit piece techniques is to attribute strawpersons to an ill-defined group--it is a favorite of ayn rand. 

From what I understand Objectivism also regards Kant as "anti-rational" and, along these lines, is where Stephen Hicks starts his "critique" of post-Modernism and from whom Jordan Peterson picks up this "notion" of "post-Modern neo-Marxists.

Essentially, it really seems like a way to beat a straw-man called post-Modernism, rather than deal with the breadth of what is (to me) the whole lineage of post-Kantian thought.

But, who the hell am I to say?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, sologdin said:

PS/PM so popular with intellectuals on College campuses to the degree that they attack hard sciences for saying that they are hard sciences

do we have specific statements made by particular interlocutors? one of the standard hit piece techniques is to attribute strawpersons to an ill-defined group--it is a favorite of ayn rand. 

I posted this article on the first page of the thread:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/

From the article:

Quote

One underlying cause of this troubling situation may be found in what happened at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., in May, when biologist and self-identified “deeply progressive” professor Bret Weinstein refused to participate in a “Day of Absence” in which “white students, staff and faculty will be invited to leave the campus for the day's activities.” Weinstein objected, writing in an e-mail: “on a college campus, one's right to speak—or to be—must never be based on skin color.” In response, an angry mob of 50 students disrupted his biology class, surrounded him, called him a racist and insisted that he resign. He claims that campus police informed him that the college president told them to stand down, but he has been forced to stay off campus for his safety's sake.

I wanted to find a copy of Lee McIntyre's article "The Attack on Truth" from the June 2015 edition of the "Chronicle of Higher Education".  Unfortunately, it's behind a pay wall.  This is the best I can do:

http://www.carihovanec.com/blog/some-thoughts-on-science-the-humanities-and-truth/

Here is a link to the article I mention that is behind a pay wall:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Attack-on-Truth/230631

[sologdin]

scot--

the scientific american article goes wrong in the subtitle. the paragraph you cited is preceded by two allegations of actual riot--not exactly an intellectually honest lead in (by the journalist) to the non-riotous facts that you find relevant to this thread. aside from a jaundiced recitation of what happened at evergreen in 2017, the journalist thinks that the kids surrounding the professor and demanding his resignation reveals a "cause" of the riots--something to do with postmodernism and marxism.  one might be surprised to learn that anti-racist protests have existed for many decades prior to postmodernism--and furthermore that anti-racism and anti-sexism are neither necessary nor sufficient for post-modernism--or for marxism, as it happens (though we might find them mostly constantly conjoined separately with both these days).  the article quotes apparent foes of leftwing ideas--but does not interrogate any specific left writer's actual writings with specificity.  it is accordingly unpersuasive. the article is correct in concluding--

Quote

If you teach students to be warriors against all power asymmetries, don't be surprised when they turn on their professors and administrators.

--which is a great virtue.  but then the article draws a non-sequitur conclusion--

Quote

This is what happens when you separate facts from values, empiricism from morality, science from the humanities.

--which sounds like something ayn rand could've written. 

then there's this fuckwit allegation:

Quote

Students are being taught by these postmodern professors that there is no truth, that science and empirical facts are tools of oppression by the white patriarchy, and that nearly everyone in America is racist and bigoted

not one item is cited in support.  at the very least i would expect a syllabus, a handout from a teacher, lecture notes, a student's video of an evil leftist adjunct speaking evilly, perhaps a term paper coerced, in-class essay writing prompts--something. but this writer offers nothing. 

in my education, i recall reading anti-foundationalist writings for classes; that is standard--but i would think that young adults should be exposed to this sort of excogitation as part of a broad education, which 20th century philosophy has taken very seriously on both sides of the atlantic for many years.  similarly, i recall reading a couple articles over the years about the geopolitical implications of the export of alleged western mathematics; it is something worthy of consideration, especially since the occurrence of western colonialism can hardly be doubted. not sure if anyone ever put forth in a course i took that nearly everyone in the US is racist--though we might ask if this is possible, and, if so, what it portends.  it is interesting to think through the notion of generalized race bias, such as in brent staples, say.

i understand that brainwashers from these young adult students' backgrounds might fear that the careful childhood indoctrination of church, family, state, and market may be undone by a few moments of critical thought--we should respect the prejudices ingrained thoughtlessly into vulnerable youth and not offer any reconsideration of inherited ideas.  paying for college means paying for repetition, i suppose.

regarding the 'attack on truth' writings: i am suspicious of the writer who wants to equate science with truth--that strikes me as a fundamental scientific illiteracy.  further, the suggestion that readers of derrida and foucault are responsible for the alleged attack on truth ignores that the philosophy of science has been reconsidering the bases of empiricism and science for a very long time.  kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions, popper's critique of AJ ayer, reichenbach's notion that two empirically equivalent theories are cognitively indistinguishable, quine-duhem, quine on dogmas of empiricism. none of those ideas provide a reason to deny climate change, of course--the denial would be subject to the same critique.  similarly, none of this provides a reason for students to riot--i doubt nevertheless that the students themselves in rioting for a specific cause in which they passionately believe think that they are striking a blow against truth--that inference simply does not follow.

[OldGimletEye]

18 minutes ago, sologdin said:

--which sounds like something ayn rand could've written. 

Ayn Rand might have written it, but the fact of the matter is that many of her mistakes were precisely because she let her values skew her view of the world. She let her values dictate her economic ideas, which were baloney, like her love of the gold standard. Her love of the gold standard had little to do with understanding monetary economics, but more so do with it just seemed "moral" according to her. She was doing "feels before reals" before "feels before reals" was cool.

She might have called herself an "objectivist", but I think she failed to live up to her own hype, kind of in the way that one of her biggest fan boys Paul "Numbers Guy" Ryan, failed to be really a numbers guy.