NP

[jbor at bigpond.com]

On 13/10/2005 François Monti wrote:

> Well, if they live in a postmodern world, and a theory is built on a  
> postmodern world by people you call postmodernists, thean I'd assume  
> that "normal" (non-theorists) people are affected by this PoMo world  
> they live to the point that they actually are in the "pomo condition".  
> If not, then what kind of theory is it that observes a world where  
> everyone acts in a way that has nothing to do with said theory? I do  
> not believe either that postmodernists theorist are just "critique" of  
> PoMo world(s). They are also theoricians of this world, whose works  
> have come handy to justify relativism and the whole "there is no  
> truth", everything is true and nothing is true at the same time.  
> That's why I actually think you are maybe the only one to have been  
> consistent in the ID debate, what with not going the "evolution is  
> great, ID is stupid" way, because you know exactly that, in postmodern  
> theories, there is no objectivity in science, the theories are  
> construction based on arbitrary postulates, a knowledge based on  
> social pressure or religious convictions. Which leads us to say that  
> neither of both theories can be said true. I was very surprised to see  
> other people defend evolution with much violence and then going on  
> about postmodernism. Well I guess contradictions are a very postmodern  
> thing...

I'm not sure I understand or agree with you. But that's OK.

I will correct you on one point, however. I didn't follow the ID debate  
at all, and the one time I did mention ID I got it wrong. Duly  
corrected, it does sound like it's something which has absolutely no  
basis or place within the discipline of science education.

The more interesting point, and the issue I've been focused on, is this  
idea that Science refutes or supplants Religion, that it's an either/or  
proposition, that people who believe in gods are idiots incapable of  
rational thought. It's not correct. In fact, it's fundamentalism, and  
absolutely at loggerheads with "the scientific method".

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/ 
1018_041018_science_religion.html

best


>>> Well, I'd argue that postmodernism being a theory about the world we  
>>> live in as well as being the tag applied to our era (or at least the  
>>> post WWII era), people who live(d) in the era are/were, consciously  
>>> or not, postmodernists. They might have no clue about this  
>>> "philosophical construct", but if this construct bears any  
>>> resemblance to the "real" world, then they are postmodernists.
>>
>>
>> I think this is a misunderstanding of postmodernism. Yes,  
>> postmodernist writers and theorists observe, describe, critique a  
>> world (or worlds) labelled as postmodern, but it doesn't then follow  
>> that everybody in that world is also a postmodernist theorist. Just  
>> because they're studied by microbiologists doesn't qualify  
>> parameciums as microbiologists. ... And George Bush sure ain't no  
>> postmodernist.