To judge from the flow of verbiage, it spells little good for the sciences. One rather inclines, in part, to Steven Weinberg’s succinct view,given last:
Alas, it was too late. I may be just out of the loop, but it seems to me now that for scientists to argue against constructivism is beating a dead donkey. There is widespread skepticism about the judgments of science, on topics like climate change, but it has other sources — as far as I know, there are no social constructivists in the Trump administration.Steven Weinberg, “The Birth, Death, and Rebirth of Postmodernism” at Chronicle of Higher Education
Actually, there is good reason for skepticism about the “judgments of science” that doesn’t flow from post-modernism. One could write a book on the subject, just using as topic headers attested information that was observed rushing by at Uncommon Descent. But, in general, scientists cannot benefit from post-modernism because it opposes any reality we must all acknowledge.
Lots of people know this. See, for example: Stop ignoring evidence for the existence of the human mind.
But it’s most instructive to see so much intensely cultivated uselessness on display.
Note:To read the article free, select it under “Articles of Note” at Arts and Letters Daily. At least, that worked here. Thing is, most of the article isn’t worth buying a subscription to wade through unless you have already been financially supporting an intellectually collapsed arts faculty at a university, in which cases you do not know what to do with your money.
There are better uses for your money. Honestly.
See also: A “Gender Non-Binary Dino” Is Not A Useful Teaching Moment
Is there life Post-Truth?
Which side will atheists choose in the war on science? They need to re-evaluate their alliance with progressivism, which is doing science no favours.
Follow UD News at Twitter!