Understanding Postmodernism and Science

Here's a piece from Quillette about postmodernism and science by Maximilian Werner, who suffered under postmodern profs back in the day. Says he:

Although, in principle, challenges to the mainstream tradition are much needed, they reveal a bias toward culture as a vehicle for determining truth:

Well, yes. That's how the world works. That's what liberals are doing by challenging the mainstream tradition. And the whole point of lefty-liberals is to be the hegemon in charge of culture and be the guy that determines truth for you and me.

Competing narratives attempt to revise the dominant narrative according to their own particular ideological, racial, ethnic, or cultural experience. The voicing of these perspectives is, of course, long overdue, and because of it we have begun to appreciate the uniqueness and complexity of human experience.

Diversity, jolly good show, and all that.

But as the work of Foucault and other social constructionists shows, if truth is subjective, and one truth is as plausible as another, as long as there is a dominant group, particular subjective truths will prevail.

Exactly. Which is what liberals are doing with their "cancel culture" that deplatforms and gets people fired for disagreeing with the liberal narrative. In fact, I would say that the dominant culture under liberal postmodernism, that liberals tell us is diverse, is the opposite. It demands a suffocating uniformity. It does not allow competing narratives to challenge the dominant narrative, which is the lefty-liberal postmodernist narrative. It uses the supposed diversity of "racial, ethnic or cultural experience" as a Trojan horse to occupy and demolish the cultural space of the supposed "dominant narrative."

But the postmodern idea that there is “no underlying meaning” in the world apart from what people may produce is nonsense.

Right. Ish. The point is that we do not know if there is an underlying meaning, but we all assert some sort of underlying meaning based on the implications of our own narrative. The only thing is that the dominant group -- lefty white liberals -- gets to impose its dominant subjectivity, other groups licensed by lefty white liberals are only allowed to advertise their narrative providing it conforms with lefty white narrative, and don't you forget it, peasant.

That a certain perspective is exclusive and hinders access to other ideas is a comment on the limitations of the perspective, not on the degree to which truth can be known and shared.

Sure. Except that no "truth can be known and shared." All truths are asserted. The question is: does the dominant group allow other narratives any cultural space or does it marginalize and cancel anything that dissents from the dominant group narrative? Oh, and does the asserted truth work? But everyone disagrees about what works, up until it is too late.

And yet Foucault’s oversight persists, as evidenced by the popularity of writing texts that privilege subjectivity over objectivity; lived experience over scientific fact; difference over similarity; orthodoxy over exploration.

Sorry, there is no "scientific fact." There is only lived experience and faith. Here is how faith works in respect of science. You have faith in the equations of quantum mechanics, and all the lived experience of semiconductor technologists, and so when you next apply Moore's Law and design the next generation of chips you have faith in your scientific theory and the lived experience of your technology. And so the beat goes on. But most likely, in getting to your next generation of chips you find that you made a lot of mistakes, and that some of your science about semiconductor technology, in which you had faith, turned out to be less than factful.

The whole fuss about climate change illustrates this approach. There are a bunch of scientists that say that with current trends in greenhouse gases they have a scientific theory that proposes runaway atmospheric warning. They have developed computer models that they say model the atmosphere usng their theories sufficiently to show significant warming over the next few decades. Activists take those results and declare that unless we act now we will see the end of the world in 12, or 50 years. Yes, but will the warming actually take place? Will it significantly change the climate as in moving agricultural zones and in causing species extinctions? The truth is that there are no scientific facts. that can tell us whether there is a problem. All we have riht now are prophesies. Almost certainly, whatever happens, the scientists will discover that they have made a lot of mistakes. If they are lucky the mistakes will cancel out.

From the postmodern perspective there is an dominant mainstream narrative supported by high government officials, government-funded scientists, and left-wing activists. According to Foucault, then, "if truth is subjective, and one truth is as plausible as another, as long as there is a dominant group, particular subjective truths will prevail." Which is exactly what is happening.

But are liberals up in arms about the dominant group naming and shaming the dissident groups as "denialists" and demanding a diverse approach to climiate science? Of course not. Because lefty-liberals use postmodernism only as a club with which to beat their political opponents. In other words, for liberals and lefties postmodernism is for use in attacking their political opponents. But when they are anxious to maintain their own idea as a dominant narrative then forget about subjectivity. Climate change is settled science -- scientific fact -- and anyone that disagrees is a science denier that rejects scientific objectivity.

What these blind lefties do not understand, because they do not want to, is that nothing is really settled, everything in science or politics or culture is faced with serious questions that have no easy and agreed-upon answers. This means that orthodoxy, the orthodoxy of educated liberals, must not snuff out exploration by others.

The point is that a successful society operates at a delicate balance point between subjectivity and objectivity and orthodoxy over exploration. Societies like Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were notable for not allowing any dissent from ruling-class orthodoxy and the result was not good. Our present era of lefty white postmodernism is an echo of those regimes. But what matters is, does the subjective narrative deliver the goods?

Or as Shakespeare put it:

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. 

Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

And suppose, after the summoning, that Owen Glendower says that the spirits have come and Harry Hotspur says that they have not?

The truth is that if you are an open-minded person you are perfectly willing to allow a diversity of opinion and allow orthodoxy to mix it up with exploration. So if you are an open-minded person you are really a postmodernist.

But the supposed postmodernists are closed-minded people that are only interested in postmodernism when it can be used as a club to smash dead-white-male-toxic-patriarchy. Otherwise their truth is scientific fact and you better not take a step out of line.