Hi
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Deborah Hume wrote:
> Maybe it is too early in the morning and I'm feeling a bit
> prickly, but this certainly rubbed me the wrong way. Leaving
> aside for the moment the possibility that there are some
> valid critiques of traditional western scientific
> methodology, how is it that irrationality, invalid inference,
> and tolerance for logical contradiction get automatically
> equated with women and racial minorities? Wasn't Deridas a
> white male?
> I realize that many of the criticisms of western scientific
> methods and thought have been raised by those who have been
> excluded from the power structure of science - and I realize
> that postmodern critics are heavy handed with their
> vocabulary and convoluted sentence structure- I am not
> arguing those points. However, the tone here, even though it
> was tongue-in-cheek, is one that is so dismissive of "women
> and racial minorities" as not able to think their way out of
> a paper bag, that I find it quite aggravating!
It is not up to me to speak for Paul, but since I started the
thread ... Sarcasm is much stronger than the phrase "tongue in
cheek" would suggest. In my mind it strikingly denigrates the
very ideas that it appears to be espousing. So my reading of
Paul's comment was more like "any one who believes these things
is irrational," rather than that women and cultural groups are
irrational.
Nor is the raising of gender and culture "automatic." It has
occurred because some vocal critics of science have claimed to
speak for or on behalf of (e.g., Derridas?) these groups (see my
list of quotes posted to Gary's query). To my reading, these
critics have been more vocal and visible than the members of
these (or most) groups who have spoken out in defence of science.
A striking example of the latter is Noretta Koertge (1998, A
house built on sand: Exposing postmodern myths about science).
I haven't read all of the chapters yet, but with respect to
culture, I particularly liked the chapter by Meera Nanda (The
epistemic charity of the social constructivist critics of science
and why the third world should refuse the offer).
Finally, to say that the postmodernists suffer from heavy handed
vocabulary and convoluted sentence structure is, in my opinion,
too generous. Among many other shortcomings, they _are_ often
irrational (i.e., they draw conclusions that are not warranted by
the premises), and they over- and miss-interpret other scholars'
ideas and findings. Just as one very common example, Kuhn is
often appealed to in support of their relativist ideas. But what
did Kuhn himself believe? Well, he told us in the addendum to
Revolutions:
"A number of them [philosophers], however,
have reported that I believe the following: the
proponents of incommensurable theories cannot
communicate with each other at all; as a result, in
a debate over theory-choice there can be no good
reasons; instead theory must be chosen for
reasons that are ultimately personal and
subjective; some sort of mystical apperception is
responsible for the decision actually reached.
More than any other parts of the book, the
passages on which these misconstructions rest
have been responsible for charges of irrationality."
(Kuhn, 1970, pp. 198-199)
"... Nothing about that relatively familiar thesis
[i.e., importance of persuasion] implies either that
there are no good reasons for being persuaded or
that those reasons are ultimately decisive for the
group. Nor does it even imply that the reasons
for choice are different from those usually listed
by philosophers of science: accuracy, simplicity,
fruitfulness, and the like." (Kuhn, 1970, p. 199)
"... the demonstrated ability to set up and to
solve puzzles presented by nature is, in case of
value conflict, the dominant criterion for most
members of a scientific group." (Kuhn, 1970, p.
205)
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
