See? Postmodernist idiocy can have adverse effects on science education beyond mere philosophizing
Offline See this quote on my signature tag?
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
It's actually a shameless altered version of a quote found in Paul Gross and Norman Levitt's Higher Superstition, a book, which, by the way, everyone should read. The quote:
Thus we encounter books that pontificate on the intellectual crisis of modern physics, whose authors who have never troubled themselves with a simple problem in statics, essays that make knowing reference to chaos theory, from writers who could not recognize, much less solve, a simple linear first order differential equation; tirades about the semiotic tyranny of DNA and molecular biology from scholars who have never been inside a real laboratory or asked how the drug they are taking lowers their blood pressure.
-Norman Levitt and Paul Gross
As you can see, pulling rank is a favored strategy of myself, and the two distinguished authors here. It works, too! You want to make an argument about thermodynamics, but can't draw a simple Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution? Then why should I talk to you? You wish to argue about evolution? Well then, I have a few quick test questions....
Insofar as this eliminates the bulk of opponents, the strategy is useful. In prioritization terms, I never viewed the postmodernist movement as a serious threat to science, even though it generated an endless stream of vapid nonsense. Certainly, it took a backseat to other dangerous anti-science movements like creationism/ID and certain factions of the animal rights movements. Today I discovered (in my own home country of Canada of all places!) that postmodernism can indeed, through its stupendous self-aggrandizing idiocy generated by people who have absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever, actually effect real science education. Here:
Link:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=688477&p=1
If there's a God, and He made the world, it wasn't in seven literal days, as creationists affirm. Nor, as many aboriginals profess to believe, did the world begin with "Sky Woman" descending to Earth in the shape of a turtle. If you don't agree, no need to read on.
Such fanciful narratives may serve to transmit cultural values, but they are still myths and, "when science meets mythology, some-thing's got to give, and it shouldn't be the science."
I am quoting here from a certain Professor Chris diCarlo, whom I recently interviewed over the telephone. He will be the keynote speaker at this weekend's annual convention of the Humanist Association of Canada in Toronto. diCarlo is an academic and the author of the enticingly titled How to Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass: A Practical Guide to Thinking Critically.
The man knows whereof he speaks. For refusing to privilege myth over science in the classroom, he was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
Mr. diCarlo's troubles began in 2005 while teaching a course in critical thinking at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., ironically, not long after he'd been named TVOntario's "Best Lecturer." From all reports a beloved and inspiring teacher, diCarlo is a rare bird nowadays: a non-ideological truth-seeker.
Caucasian himself, diCarlo had a T-shirt printed with the logo "We are all Africans" -- a reference to the widely held scientific view that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna about 200,000 years ago, and then later migrated to other parts of the world.
But his anti-racist message that a disparate humankind evolved from a common genetic ancestry ruffled aborigino-centric feathers in his classroom. The result: an accusation of what is known in academia as a "stolen legacy."
Archaeologists believe that North American aboriginals' forebears traversed the Bering Strait when it was still an icy land mass 13,000 years ago. That's what diCarlo taught. But aborigino-centrists would prefer the folkloric notion that aboriginals were, uniquely, always here. The Bering Strait migration evidence, it is felt among some Alaskan aboriginals, may even undermine land claims. So opposition to the historical evidence is both emotionally and politically charged.
In diCarlo's case, the message was perceived by the student who brought him down ("My people don't believe in what you're saying"
as both racist and -- the statement being moored in scientific methodology -- eurocentric. There are more than enough ironies to savour at every stage of this story, but a humanist embodying a rigorously anti-creationist view of human origins being perceived as an agent of Christian elitism has to top the list.
Mr. diCarlo's subsequent crime was to stand his intellectual ground. It wasn't a moral issue or a contentious empirical debate: One side represented the best of what we know from science, the other was demonstrably untrue. Nevertheless, the "offended" students knew their "rights": They complained.
And hey, presto, before you can say "craven university administration," diCarlo had lost the tenured job for which he was already short-listed. (He has since won damages in a grievance and is happily tenure-bound at a school that appreciates him.)
Pandering to aboriginals' stolen-legacy gambits has become commonplace, I'm informed by my "moles" studying Canadian history at various universities. One is now job-hunting in the academy, so I'll call her Lori, not her real name.
Lori feels her academic freedom has been constrained by academics' obsession over the empowerment of "oppressed" groups at the expense of historical fact: "When aboriginality comes into the mix, academics fall all over themselves to compromise their core secularism."
She indignantly reports that more than one of her professors suggested she teach native creation stories -- not as anthropological lore but alongside the Bering Strait theory -- to accommodate aboriginal sensibilities.
When history teachers can't -- or won't -- distinguish between allegory and fact to avoid accusations of stolen legacies, they are denying an entire generation of students their intellectual inheritance: the unbiased pursuit of objective truth. We could help students -- and principled teachers -- to reclaim what's rightfully theirs by asking: Who is the real thief here?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Having lived with natives for a long time in the NWT, many of those that wish to move forwards are constrantained by those that follow ancient beliefs and the desire to blame everyone else but themselves for not moving forward. Plus no amount of evidence can change their minds.
The postmodernist anti-science BS is rarely if not never discussed on this forum. The postmodernists are an amalgamation of various groups on the Left (ie. feminists, African Americans, Marxists, environmentalists, Native Americans, etc.) who have been historically oppressed by a "white, male, capitalist" society. These folks have a bone to pick with any reductionist scientific enterprise which they interpret as being a white, imperialist, bourgeous, androcentric hegemony of scientific reality. According to them there is no objective reality but that reality is a social construct dictated by the prevailing ideology. Only in an "inclusive" culture with mutiple interpretations of the world constrained by each group's social discourse can there be a truly "democratic" anti-elitist, "progressive" view of science. If these folks had it their way, Intelligent Design would be in every biology text.
I can't emphasize this enough folks, it ain't just the fundies who are irrational. Be mindful of folks out there trying to "liberate the oppressed." With their postmodernist, socially constructed bull crap one could claim that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it.
Precisely. I might add that the "examples" they give to back up their case are so ridiculous it makes you want to know what drugs they take. I laughed so hard I almost choked when the "androcentricity" of science was supposedly demonstrated with the argument that fluid/continuum mechanics took a backseat to the development of solid-body mechanics because the former is a representation of the female sex organs and the latter of male and hence that Newtonian mechanics unsubtly preferences traditional male gender roles. The same bright spark who came up with this line of reasoning drew the conclusion that Principia Mathematica was a "rape manual".
The real reason that continuum mechanics took much longer to develop is because the Navier-Stokes equations are immensely difficult to solve. They require the employment of rate functions much more complex than the calculus needed to solve Newtonian problems. Indeed, the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem of turbulence is considered the hardest unsolved problem in mathematical physics, whose difficulty ranks with proof of Reinmann's hypothesis and the Poincare conjecture. As one of the millenium problems, a correct solution to the problem guarantees the solver an immediate US$1mil and a place in the annals of physics.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Oh, you know what drugs they take. I think the only contribution "postmodernism" has given us thus far is crowning people who for thousands of years have been called "boring" with a new title. Honestly, the daddy issues it would take to come up with your example:
I mean, really. As a joke? Moderately witty. As a serious suggestion? Fuck off.
Wouldn't it be nice to see a little humility every once and a while? Just a little? Like acknowledgement of the fantastic (and as you say, difficult) work of scientists thus far? Maybe, people? How much would it kill people to check out a little bit about quantum physics before spouting off about its "metaphysical implications"? I mean, holy shit.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Jesus, don't get me started on those people. The conversations with them are very, very strange.
"Quantum mechanics prove telepathy! Everything is one. Matter is actually energy vibrating, and we are all made of light and cancer can be cured using the applications of energy fields".
"Excuse me, don't you think you should know some basic quantum mechanics before reaching into your ass and pulling out whatever comes to mind"?
"I am intimately familiar with quantum mechanics. It validates the ideas of ancient Eastern mystics."
"Easy enough to check. Given a wavelength of 650nm, what is the energy carried by this photon? If this photon illuminates a zinc surface with a work function of 4.2eV, what is the maximum velocity of electron emission"?
*Thinks for a moment*
"The evil scientific community is suppressing our ideas"!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
...
I'm sorry, I may actually be weeping with rage. You read Chinese, I'm presuming. Have you read any ancient texts? The ones they talk about when they say "ancient Eastern mystics"? You know the style they use, right? The vague, long-winded way to a teacher saying "figure it out yourself, you little shit" that borders on making fun of the reader?
My Chinese is not what it was (I studied Mandarin only for 4 years, and that's just scratching the surface of any language - especially when you're not in the country) but from what I recall, the mathematical style was quite different from their "mystic" style. In fact, the mathematical works were pretty advanced, so ... why wouldn't the "ancient Eastern mystics" have written in that style if they were so fucking sure of themselves? If they were so spot on, why didn't they just write it down? They had all the means. In fact, I think they had a great deal of the math.
Holy shit self-righteous lazy people piss me off.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I can't read traditional characters or ancient script, so nothing original. But yeah, point well taken. It [the current "eastern" fad and the whole quantum mysticisim schtick, endorsed by such films as What the Bleep do we know?] is just a ridiculous, americanized pop-culture fad for idiots. Not only could most of these people not answer high school level questions on quantum mechanics (the one I gave above would not be out of place on a Grade 11 physics test), but they couldn't answer any basic questions about supposed "Eastern mysticism" either. The whole thing is just an enormous delusion these people have created for themselves. It's absolutely remarkable.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Homeopathic?
A good translation is priceless. Chinese just doesn't translate to English, as I'm sure you're aware. It has that same wonderful compact way of getting a point across that Latin does. Anyway, just experiencing the tone of the ancient texts is very ... illuminating, to say the least.
While we're idiot bashing: my favourite example of this kind of thing is a true story I once read about a pair of brothers from San Francisco who decided that they would be zen monks. I can only imagine that they believed they would be like Cain in Kung Fu. When they got to the temple in Japan, and were refused several times (as is tradition) they were getting pretty excited that enlightenment was right behind the door. When they were finally let in, they discovered the real world of zen temples: smoking, drinking, teachers whacking students pretty much all the time, more drinking, monks going out to the city to go find whores, and daily scrubbing of a completely clean floor ... all things that are completely normal in Japanese monastic culture, but didn't fit with the American puritanical "monk" concept that you see on television. The pictures of these bald white guys in black pajamas digging ditches with a totally deflated look on their faces ... priceless.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
AH-hahahaha!
Placebos didn't even occur to me! You're a genius! Like people smoking bananas. Oh man.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The "We're All African" shirt... was considered Eurocentric?
That is beyond wonderful. That is just solid gold PC brainsmog.
We need to make Alan Sokal a saint of some kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_hoax
Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)
More science cops, more arrests. Everyone should be a scientist, or supporter.
I want to clarify myself, especially to DG, one of my fav posters. I am god, as "everything is gawed".
Nit picking DG's words .... I always do, because I am fan of this.
I am not mystic, new age, religious, superstitious, .......... >
I post the way I do, from emotion, as to invite everyone, to come aboard honestly, naked, to help destroy separatism.
The best bands can jam .... I am trying to say, go science philosophy DG ....
Disclaimer: I am drunk , the band here is jamming, people are shouting at me , and I am singing at them, so I will post this anyway, for the sake of honesty .....
Silly me ....
my favorite me , 
can I get a second chance ??? 
Atheism Books.
The time since you needed to add that into any disclaimer has long since passed.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
But I post any hoot .... to encourage honesty, as a call to the simple farmers, to speak up.
Yeah, that ship has sailed.
Oh sober iGod, we hardly knew ye. Did you see that one sober post? Two relevant, poignant questions. But that's all in the past now. The future belongs to rum.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I really love you guys, thing is I really see being serious as part of of the the problem to solve. What I mean is intimidation and fear has always been my enemy. I have never thought that knowing it all was possible, and I long ago gave it up, to to be what I AM .... GOD .... in the flow. If it ain't fun I don't like it .... Yeah , okay I AM religious, my religion is fun, and worry is my enemy , that is all my message ..... my epitaph .... for now .... trying to be happy , on prison earth .... a life sentence !
Atheism Books.
What's come of the IGod I've come to know and like? You're thinking 'deep thoughts' and it has me wondering if someone's spiked your rum.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
So ... you're a hippie?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Kay, "spiked your rum"
How the fuck would I know, god did it !
I am just a prisoner looking for a fix ....
I could play a zillion songs ....
Oh Baby Baby ....
Okay a song
IRON BUTTERFLY THEME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qkcwBsKizU
Atheism Books.
I AM a hippie, damn right, and proud .....
I'm just wondering if someone did, that's all.
I'm glad to see you back to yourself. 
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Hey, that's cool. Peace, love, and all that.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
( I didn't intend to hijack this thread )
DG, I've spent like 2 hrs seriously looking for one my favorite RRS essays, I'm pretty sure was one of yours. It was about silly "New Age" ideas, and how they are popular in the media. Hamby may have wrote one similar? I think I commented that this essay should be "read on radio". Can you direct me to it? ( it's in one of my H.D.s somewhere? ....
It may have been lost in one of the RRS crashes. I enjoy most, your philosophy/science writing and wish they were still included in your compilation list.
Missing, "Compilation of Quotes From Deludedgod" etc, etc ....
While searching I found some favorite DG here, you can track
Posted on: July 13, 2007
"Pissed off and need to rant"
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13445
"The Worst Arguments Ever Encountered"
[ regarding atheism ]
Posted on: May 29, 2007
"Quotes from the founding fathers everyone should know"
_____________________________________
To briefly re-say, I do want us to know everything, but not to worry, nor be intimidated ....
Kay, you are cool Kat, I was laughing with you ....
Thanks RRS
Atheism Books.
Hey DG, I agree with your assessment of that situation as postmodern idiocy.
Because science doesn't declare sacrilege (at least not in seriousness) it ends up disenfranchised by the postmodern argument. When faced with the fantasy roleplay game that is political correctness* (*sic) all science can say is 'We don't hold those kinds of aces' and lose by default to the superstitious nature of the game anyway.
Postmodern culture is sometimes frightening in the way it has been managing to ostracise hard-work by forcing to to compete with tradition; which is also ironic given that political correctness was founded upon the opposite aim.
Science and myth should be taught in separate courses with a clear boundary. Just presupposing that their foundations may entail they can be combined is no justification for combining them. I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with the notion that one day we may universally agree on a platform whereby humanity's various epistemological pursuits can be seen sensibly and informatively in light of each other, but there is something very wrong with pressing them together in conflict just because that might be true. Especially if it's done in the education system.. which smells, to me, of a new-age tacit endeavour to turn children into philosophical lab mice.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com