On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:17:06 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: >Hi > >Presumably I misread your point as broader than intended, Michael. But when >someone refers to "irrational critiques" of science and "science deniers," I >tend to think of more than conservative attacks on science. Indeed in a post >that preceded yours, I made the point about irrational attacks in the science >wars.
Remember that this thread was started by my making reference to published research that has shown that people who self-identify as conservatives on the GSS have demonstrated a decreasing pattern of trust in science over time. For those Tipsters just entering this thread, this is a good website to see the figure that is being referred to: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10911111-study-tracks-how-conservatives-lost-their-faith-in-science?source=science20.com If you go back to my original post, most of my points were with respect to this publication and its implications. It was Rick Froman, I think, that started to "muddy" the waters by going beyond the original article, and who introduced the issue of post-modernism which was not relevant to the original study. Indeed, post-modernism and the "science wars" appear to be mainly an academic squabble which has had little effect on the general public. Consider: PoMo and related tendencies would have most likely affected liberals or people tending toward liberal ideas and one would have expected that as PoMo developed in popularity, at least in academia, we should see a decrease in trust in science among liberals especially during the 1990s -- but there isn't this trend. During the 1990s, liberals had the lowest trust in science in 1990 and every subsequent year during the 1990s shows an increase in trust in science -- while conservatives show a trend for decreasing trust in science. Is someone going to argue that it was the conservatives who were really PoMo? As odd as it might sound, perhaps they are. So, what does PoMo and the science wars have to do with the original points? Jim, it is useful to know, as you point in previous post, that some academics have started to appreciate the seriousness of their PoMo games when they find out that they apparently are on the conservative team, that is, PoMo attacks on science and reason can be used by anyone against science and rationality, even MoFos who want to displace science and rationality with religion and political ideology. NOTE: it doesn't really matter that PoMo attacks or criticisms don't appear to make any sense whatsoever (Sokal's hoax clear demonstrates that even nonsense was taken seriously), academics attacking academics will be used by enemies of the academy regardless of the reasonableness or validity of their arguments. Another side point: as the Pew survey results show, people in general have a positive view of science though it is lower today than, say, a decade ago. Nonetheless, conservatives appear to have a far lower positive view of science, as indicated in the original article I cited. Distrust of science is not an American problem (or an academic problem) but a conservative problem. Jim continued to say: >"Where I would diverge slightly from Rick is in his final comment about >science being able to stand rational critique. The problem with the >"science wars" and the then and ongoing critiques of science from >postmodernists and like ilk was that only one side was being rational. >It is much more difficult to defend oneself against irrational attacks >from people who do not value or understand reason and science. After >all, those are sexist, eurocentric, racist, elitist constructs and need >not be adhered to by enlightened (in the anti-enlightenment sense of the >word) people." > >Nor did I see anything in your post that limited your comment to organized >political parties. I read it as commenting on the people (conservatives and >Republicans) who are "science deniers." Consideration of the literature on the >science wars would find lots of people who identify as liberal and Democrats >who deny science as a special way of knowing, hence the Gross and Levitt >allusion to academic left. I did not want to leave the impression, which I >appear to have wrongly got from your posting, that the right is all we need to >worry about when it comes to attacks on science. There's lots of negativity to >go around. Again, let me emphasize the irrelevance of the Gross and Levitt, the Science Wars, and the PoMo movement: this was a movement that had its greatest influence in the 1990s. Consider (1) Gross & Levitt: published in 1994 (2) The Sokal Hoax: published in 1995 (3) Reactions to Sokal and the anti-PoMo take place mostly in the 1990s and start to ebb in the first decade of the 20th century. Perhaps this article by Bruno Latour is the signal that the PoMo party is over: (Available on Jstor) Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern Bruno Latour Critical Inquiry , Vol. 30, No. 2 (Winter 2004), pp. 225-248 Published by: The University of Chicago PressExternal Link Article DOI: 10.1086/421123 Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421123 (NOTE: Critical Theory can be seen as the mainstream of thought that helped fueled related movement, such as PoMo) Consider the following quote from Latour after raising questions about the entire enterprise that has been based on critical theory: |My argument is that a certain form of critical spirit has sent us down the |wrong path, encouraging us to fight the wrong enemies and, worst of all, |to be considered as friends by the wrong sort of allies because of a little |mistake in the definition of its main target. The question was never to get |away from facts but closer to them, not fighting empiricism but, on the contrary, |renewing empiricism. Latour has come to this point when he sees people on the right, such as Frank Luntz, and conspiracy theorists (e.g., Mossad and/or CIA blew up the World Trade Center), using critical theory and its methods to obscure or deny facts, exploiting uncertainty in the service of ideological goals (e.g., evolution is just a theory not a fact so other theories like intelligent design should also be given equal time). Latour and others in the critical program do not want to be associated with such people and therefore have to change their focus. Given what Latour says, perhaps it is not so absurd to call US conservatives the new post-modernists. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] >>> Michael Palij <[email protected]> 01-Apr-12 9:04 AM >>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 06:20:11 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: >>> Michael Palij <[email protected]> 31-Mar-12 5:54 PM >>> >>I actually have no idea what you mean by the statement above. >>Of course science can stand rational critique -- it is the IRRATIONAL >>critiques that are a problem, you know, beliefs like the Bible tells >>us all we need to know about the world (remember the Stephen >>Colbert question?). Given that most science deniers are from >>conservatives and Republicans, I think we know who has co-opted >>the crazy train. For additional perspective on this point, see: >>http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/06/mooney_revisits_the_republican.php > >The science wars were / are not with conservatives. I'm sorry but where did I refer to the "science wars" above? If we accept that the "science wars" was based on the clash of post-modernism with establishment disciplines, then we are a talking primarily about a argument that has taken place in the academy and may have been only manifested itself to the larger culture in art, entertainment, and certain activities. I am, however, unaware of any "Post-modern political party" in the U.S. I doubt that even if there was one, it would have very supporters. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=17080 or send a blank email to leave-17080-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
