tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post5706979842264343251..comments2023-05-12T05:58:15.192-06:00Comments on Signifying nothing: Why Richard Dawkins has post-modernism all wrongClint Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534333959460032669noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-7446927483782923482007-12-03T13:45:00.000-07:002007-12-03T13:45:00.000-07:00It is coincidental that you should comment on this...It is coincidental that you should comment on this today, Anton Frattaroli, given that I just wrote about Dawkins again and why he so quickly rejects linguistic philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you make a fair point that one can analyze science through a post-modern lens. A scientist like Dawkins, however, is going to call that mumbo-jumbo, however. They don't see it that way at all: they don't believe that our state of being or understanding of the world has anything to do with their objective reality. As you say, he is dismissive and simplistic.Clint Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13534333959460032669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-20667223576809574192007-12-03T13:19:00.000-07:002007-12-03T13:19:00.000-07:00I think you're both (author and middlebrow) missin...I think you're both (author and middlebrow) missing the point that postmodernism can (and should) be applied to science. It is a powerful school of thought. We used to have a consensus that fire was a substance, and that an atom is the smallest indivisible particle. Both were based in empirical evidence, both proved to be untrue. Science is the pursuit of truth, and will most likely approach the perfect truth asymptotically (i.e. we'll never know). This is just like interpretation of text, no matter how simple it is. You'll never be able to know the exact meaning and intention of the author. What the end product results in is a different reality for each person. Anyone claiming any differently is absorbed in a pipe dream, but, in their reality it is the truth.<BR/><BR/>I'm not touting relativism, because certain realities have commonalities. Women are studied because each individual in the group has a commonality in the fact that they are women and experience being women similarly enough to the point it is worth studying.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins is too simplistic and dismissive.Anton Frattarolihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18055011245108047050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-10361739883680400322007-10-04T11:37:00.000-06:002007-10-04T11:37:00.000-06:00This is why I would never call myself a postmodern...This is why I would never call myself a postmodernist. Hell, I barely call myself a feminist--I always liked bell hooks who (I think it was her) said that she *did* feminism. That's cool. I'm not a blogger; I blog. I'm not a lesbian, I do...ooooh, better stop there.susansinclairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12902873240114986043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-83596741064948636862007-10-04T08:17:00.000-06:002007-10-04T08:17:00.000-06:00"That does not excuse, however, big mouth Humaniti..."That does not excuse, however, big mouth Humanities folks from jawing about stuff which they know precious little..."<BR/><BR/>Maybe you're already quite familiar with this book/story, but I highly recommend "The Sokol Hoax" which demonstrates quite sadly and hilariously that exact point. As much as I love and buy into postmodernism for its pattern-and generalities-finding which is right up my alley, and wonderfully removed and irreverant omniscient viewpoint, you don't have to look very far into its offerings to find profound pretentiousness, obscene stretches and utter bullshit. <BR/>rAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-62669504957601353142007-10-03T16:41:00.000-06:002007-10-03T16:41:00.000-06:00Well put, MB and R. It is a big mistake for folks...Well put, MB and R. It is a big mistake for folks to make hold the position that "everything is a text" given that it is very clear that everything is emphatically not a text. Our interpretation of phenomena, however, are often texts. It is an interesting metaphor--the text. Our thoughts are not strictly a text either, but according to PoMo they sort of are. No doubt it is all one big muddled mess (PoMo thought, that is) but most philosophies are when you come right down to it. That does not excuse, however, big mouth Humanities folks from jawing about stuff which they know precious little. <BR/><BR/>Science has, for that matter, attempted to control natural language as an medium to convey data. They haven't always been successful in that venture, and in their "simple language/plain writing" campaigns usually don't produce the results they want. Why?Clint Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13534333959460032669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-26541746573406819862007-10-03T13:59:00.000-06:002007-10-03T13:59:00.000-06:00But isn't Dawkins also fair to criticize postmoder...But isn't Dawkins also fair to criticize postmodernism on the point of textuality? One feature of the so-called linguistic turn is that the clear-cut distinction between empirical facts and linguistic facts was blurred. Everything's textual. "Nothing's outside the text," Derrida told us.<BR/><BR/>Humanities professors then felt emboldened to make claims about the empirical world--about scientific stuff--because making arguments about the world "out there" and making arguments about textuality amounted to the same thing in their eyes. To use theorris's example, making claims about rocks and making claims about the social representations of rocks is obviously different. But I don't think some social constructionist types were careful about observing that distinction.<BR/><BR/>This understandably annoyed scientists. I mean look at the Luce Irigaray stuff that Dawkins cites. It's awful and she's clearly making claims outside her are of expertise. After reading it, I feel like I should apologize to a scientist on behalf of the Humanities. <BR/><BR/>Does linguistic bias exist? Certainly. But haven't we overemphasized this in English departments? I increasingly think so.middlebrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14810341455860537174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-85435765091245815452007-10-03T05:14:00.000-06:002007-10-03T05:14:00.000-06:00One thing I left out of this post: throughout his ...One thing I left out of this post: throughout his article, Dawkins keeps calling on the magic bullet of "plain writing" as if he can some how avoid interpretation or ambiguity completely in his writing. He seems to honestly believe that he can completely control the text he produces and that nothing ambiguous will creep its way in. Funny it sounds a lot like the "common sense" that science so rightly rails against as being biased and flat-out wrong.Clint Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13534333959460032669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-78221990154752389662007-10-03T00:35:00.000-06:002007-10-03T00:35:00.000-06:00I think it's important too, to define 'text', whic...I think it's important too, to define 'text', which within postmoderism is a huge & meaningful conceptual and inclusive term. It can rightfully confound the uninitiated. Almost anything is ripe for translation or becoming text-ualized, and doesn't necessarily refer to actual manuscripts or things written, or such things necessarily open to or geared/meant for compartmentalization/decontruction/translation. It's not negating your research into the mating habits of the tsetse fly--it's probably pointing out how your use of provocative language compares with other researchers of the opposite gender. <BR/>rAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-16230496632563526162007-10-03T00:07:00.000-06:002007-10-03T00:07:00.000-06:00I appreciate you taking the time to elucidate all ...I appreciate you taking the time to elucidate all this. I read the article you posted the link to, and my reaction was a far less articulate version of what you said here, something like, "But wait a minute. Now, see here. But . . . but . . . I like some things about postmodernism!" So boo ya.Lisa B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10646181766775405935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12055006.post-43587387141593259652007-10-02T22:31:00.000-06:002007-10-02T22:31:00.000-06:00I get it! Well said.And I agree about science and ...I get it! Well said.<BR/>And I agree about science and bias. I once had a throw down with my anthro professor about "assumptions." (which related to gender of course). He didn't understand why I would object to labeling gorilla groups "harems." He was an ass.Dr Writehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16408687271313205905noreply@blogger.com