Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science (French: Impostures . Richard Dawkins, in a review of this book, said regarding the discussion of . retrieved 2 July ; Richard Dawkins, “Postmodernism Disrobed. Yes, there are many “postmodern” papers and books which make absolutely no sense and Dawkins is right to make fun of them. Applying the. Postmodernism disrobed. Authors: Dawkins, Richard. Affiliation: AA(Richard Dawkins is at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford.

Author: Faenris Tem
Country: Congo
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 11 November 2017
Pages: 95
PDF File Size: 16.42 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.65 Mb
ISBN: 438-7-78326-981-8
Downloads: 4314
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Sar

The reason some sociologists do not feel they need to do public sociology is because they feel social work is an extension of what they do. Even science constantly reassesses itself and finds all of disrboed faults, to correct them. The point isn’t that he pkstmodernism a “field”. There are people who can neither think nor write in every branch of science.

The downvotes are because you are defending what appears, to most reasonable observers, to be utter nonsense. I don’t think that invalidates it though.

The first part is falsified by simply running any scientific experiment, which provides us with abundant truth. Additionally, making a claim of “to most reasonable observers” implies that I am neither logical nor reasonable. Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter.

I can’t think of a postmdoernism to react to your comment in a coherent fashion, so I’ll offer just a heap of broken images what a postmodern quote, isn’t it? In Jacques Derrida ‘s response, “Sokal and Bricmont Aren’t Serious,” first published in Le MondeDerrida writes that the Sokal hoax is rather “sad,” not only because Alan Sokal’s name is now linked primarily to a hoaxnot to sciencedawins also because the chance to reflect seriously on this issue has been ruined for a broad public forum that deserves better.

The professor wasn’t much help either because he was too busy telling stories about what it was like when he fought Mussolini’s fascists in WW2. That sounds like something straight out of The Onion: It is for that reason I said it implies such.


The very idea of tolerance, which is so fashionable in a non-derogatory sense in our current society, is fundamentally postmodern. The thing is, all of them came to their belief based upon well founded philosophy and logic, yet we cannot say which postmorernism them is right. Hopefully, one day he’ll realize his denigrating and divisive rhetoric isn’t going to win over the non-believers.

You can have logical tit for tats about the existence of the supernatural, but you cannot quantify it. And if there is one important philosopher of this movement who never wrote absurd bullshit involving pretentious pseudo-science, who is s he? It is a contradiction only if you follow that definition.

Fashionable Nonsense – Wikipedia

I’m not interested in inventing meaning from a short quote and putting my words into the author’s mouth, and I do not have the time to go read the originals. Reducing everything to random bits of absurdity? Obfuscating the word “truth” does not help with meaningful discourse, although I’ve read it’s a hallmark of postmodernism. Applying the criticism to “postmodernism” in general is plain wrong. I’m different than that other ‘crux’ who is also standing opstmodernism for postmodernism here.

As you grow older you learn that other people have the same ideas and what makes them succeed is disribed work.

You dixrobed have to remember that these are creative people asking the questions, and creative people cannot be tamed. The difference between the pseudo-reality you show and his reality is that he is deliberately constructing the reality that behaves like a real world identity. My entire program is obsessed with bounded rational choice. Estragon on June 7, There are two aspects to this.

Can all ethics be shared by all though? Since absolute truths are unattainable, we need to respect other beliefs. The fact that postmodernity encompasses all of these previous time periods makes is inherently complex. I posted this in the other thread, but intended to post it here, so it’s posted twice unfortunately. So how is it that a community that’s at least capable of putting out a good handful of really modern, interesting notions can apparently be so firmly up to its knees in bullshit?

Not at the moment, but that’s irrelevant.


So where does that leave the core idea of post-modernism? Now sometimes that consistency is infuriating as when he accuses the US dakwins something they condemned in others. I’m afraid you’re right in implying the widespread idea of postmodernism is all twisted and not necessarily true to the original concept.

Postmodernism disrobed

He calls it ridiculous and weird that there are intensities of treatment by the scientists, in particular, that he was “much less badly treated,” when in fact he was the main target of the US press. I don’t think anyone here would take Ray Kurzweil’s books seriously, but quite a few people would upvote an article by Dawkins or Chomsky, whose books have contributed to their respective fields in the same way that Kurzweil has to ours — which is to say, not at all.

The prior phrasing stinks a little of white privilege. I’ll direct you to my other post heresince some of it applies to your comment as well. Several scientists have expressed similar sentiments. Thus, his reality is our fantasy and our reality is his. So no, there is no basis to believe that we absolutely can never know something, just that we cannot test for it yet, assuming we’re talking about the physical world.

While there may be more substance than there is with pure randomness, the clear misapplication of mathematical and scientific principles is fairly damning. Suffice to say that I believe there are many interesting things to be said about gender and science, from the obvious statistics, anecdotes and trends, to the less obvious — such as the historical, cultural, and linguistic parallels between science and authoritarian patriarchy, for example.

He strikes me as an aloof academician with no social skills and no empathy with the rest of mankind. On Jacques Lacan, for example, whose name is revered by many in humanities departments throughout US and British universities, no doubt partly because he simulates a profound understanding of mathematics: