Intelligent Design Philosophy Science

How post-modernism can strangle research

Spread the love

This sort of thing could put science on a forced march to a dark age:

… the dominance of postmodernist thought in recent decades has entirely undermined the traditional idea of how to carry out research.

Postmodernists fundamentally challenge the very concept of “truth”. Their truth is that there is no truth. Once someone accepts the premise that no such thing as truth exists — and believes that everything is merely a struggle for power, and that truth (or untruth) is just a matter of personal perspective — then the very ideal of scholarship as “a quest for truth” makes no sense. It becomes a waste of time.

These scholars-in-name-only are, in fact, activists. And once these activist-scholars have abandoned the pursuit of truth, they cease to work within constraints or remain grounded. They are thus free to pursue their ideological goals in all sorts of ways — and begin to assist their preferred group (or groups) in their struggle to achieve power within their departments, and at their institutions and universities. Charlie Weimers, “Forced march of the academics” at MercatorNet

We may need to prepare for truckloads of “research” that can’t be defended on a factual basis, done by and for people for whom “facts” are problematic in principle.

The real war on science is from within.

See also: The progressive war on science takes dead aim at math

and

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.

4 Replies to “How post-modernism can strangle research

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    In fact the post-modernists ARE accepting the universal absolute truth of academia. All research is brazenly and nakedly a struggle for power between competing labs or competing professors, grabbing for the brass ring of scarce grant money. If the published output RECOGNIZES this struggle more clearly, non-academics who have been conflating this output with “science” might be able to SEE it more clearly.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    There is an attempt to do to science what has been done to history. Fascist has been so diluted from the origin as to no longer be considered Italian. It was as if Mussolini either never existed, or mirrored Hitler so completely in views as to make fascist and Nazi the same, which is a bastardization of history. 80% of Jews survived Mussolini’s rule as a brutal dictator who happened to have a Jewish mistress.

    Mussolini was a Marxist throughout the entirety of his life who hated Italian Socialists for being in opposition to getting involved in the Great War. Marx teaches revolution can come from war. By opposing war, they opposed Marxist revolution. He later became the embodiment of Nietzsche’s superhuman who ruled by force and will without regard to good and evil.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Their truth is that there is no truth.

    But, if there is no truth how can it possibly be true that there is no truth???

    I guess, besides truth, logic itself, specifically the law of noncontradiction, is also nonexistent for these postmodernists who are trying to force society to accept their radical “gender ideology”, (an ideology where someone’s gender is merely a matter of choice, and is not a biological reality)???

    Is it too obvious to point out the fact that having a reasonable debate with someone who does believe in the objective existence of truth or logic is impossible???

    In short, postmodernists have embraced insanity!

    Moreover, besides the blatant self-refuting contradiction of believing that there is no objective truth, save of course for the objective truth that there is no objective truth. 🙂 , there is another glaring self contradiction behind these postmodernists who are pushing their radical “gender ideology” onto society.

    Specifically, postmodernist, as they hold truth to be subjective, (i.e. who hold ‘your truth’ to be simply a matter of subjective preference and not a matter of objective reality), also hold that gender does not objectively exist but is also merely a matter of subjective preference.

    In fact, for postmodernists gender is, (like truth is), infinitely fluid for them.

    For prime example,,,

    12 Gender-Related Terms You Should Know and Understand – OCT 29, 2020
    8. Genderqueer
    Excerpt: “I identify as genderqueer, because a lot of times I feel like a woman, and a lot of times I feel like a dude who feels like wearing women’s clothes. Sometimes I feel like a dude who doesn’t wear women’s clothes. I think that it’s a complicated thing,” Powell says.
    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a20888315/genders-identity-list-definitions/

    And yet these postmodernists who hold that people can choose their gender based on their subjective feelings at any giving moment, irregardless of their biological reality, also hold that someone’s sexuality is not a matter of preference.

    In fact, Amy Coney Barrett, during her confirmation hearing to the US Supreme Court, quote unquote “stepped into a queer hornet’s nest” when she suggested that sexuality was a matter of preference.

    Judge Barrett, don’t use ‘sexual preference’ for LGBTQ people. It’s incorrect and alarming.
    Excerpt: Judge Amy Coney Barrett stepped into a queer hornet’s nest during her confirmation hearings to become the next Supreme Court justice. Asked about her views on discrimination against LGBTQ people, she replied: “I have no agenda, and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”
    Then the internet erupted in flames. That’s because Barrett used two words—sexual preference — that LGBTQ people find offensive,,,,
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/14/barrett-confirmation-sexual-preference-remark-alarming-column/3649884001/

    So here we have, with postmodernists, yet another fundamental contradiction in logic.

    According to postmodernists, you can choose whatever gender want to be at any particular moment, based solely on your subjective feelings at any given moment, but, on the other hand, they hold you have absolutely no say in what your sexual preference may be.

    As should be needless to say, this is a contradiction in logic. I would go far far as to say that it is insane to deny biological reality in favor of subjective feelings!

    As Tucker Carlson pointed out,,,

    “So follow the ‘reasoning’, if you will… according to Mazie Hirono, you can choose your gender at will, because there’s an infinite number of genders to choose from, but you have absolutely no say in who you find attractive, and suggesting otherwise it’s just offensive.
    “Sexual preferences are fixed in stone, bigot, and by the way put on your mask! This message has been brought to you by the party of science.”
    – Tucker Carlson

    All of this gender insanity propagated by postmodernists onto society reminds me of this quote by Chesterton

    “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.”
    G.K. Chesterton – The Oracle of the Dog
    https://www.faithandculture.com/home/2019/5/29-believing-in-anything

    Verse:

    Romans 1:22-28
    Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
    Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
    For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
    And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

  4. 4
    BobRyan says:

    Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Otto Juliusburger, in 1948, in which he wrote, “I believe that the abominable deterioration of ethical standards stems primarily from the mechanization and depersonalization of our lives..” That depersonalization has resulted in many of the problems that exist.

Leave a Reply