Here is a nutshell reaction to the book I am reading right now. Objectivism (not the Rand kind, but the general principle that we can measure a reality external to us) fails when we mistakenly assume that the fact that an objective reality exists automatically means that we know it. False certainty on subjects like race, class and gender have led to large and small atrocities in the name of science.
In response to that, relativist thinking proposed that people only perceive reality in light of what they expect to see. Psychologists long ago learned that they’re right – most of the time we all, scientists included, fail to perceive something if it falls too far outside of our expectations. Other timeswe see an appealing artifact and call it real. ‘Soft’ relativism has served us well by defying unjust assumptions about race and gender that permeated both science and society. However, as an academic discipline postmodern thinkers almost always slide into ‘hard’ relativism sillytown where people deny the existence of any reality that is not created de novo by language and culture (here’s a test: try banging your head on the desk. whatever culture you come from, it hurts).
Both perspectives have a compelling point and both have an obvious downside. On the one hand you have scientific progress followed by scientifially sanctioned racism, eugenics and worse. On the other you have a necessary check on sclerotic paternalism followed by a slide down the rabbit hole of denying reality itself. If everyone listened to me, like they should, I’d propose that we keep the best of both in an approach that I’ll call ‘objective humility.’ People who followed my plan would acknowledge that an objective reality exists while also acknowledging that knowing reality is a hard process that often, due to our cultural and biological limitations, leads us to the wrong conclusions.
Professional scientists reading this will most likely shrug because, more or less, that’s what we do. People like me have a job because society already assumes that (a) objective reality exists, and (b) illuminating reality is a tough business lined with appealing falsehoods. Half of the job of any scientist X is correcting the many things that scientist Y got wrong. Scientific paternalism is less of a problem due to the sensible (an ongoing) corrections from socially engaged postmodern thinkers. Meanwhile ‘hard’ relativist scholars have become about as relevant to ordinary people as theologians arguing angels on a pin.
Naturally a principle can organize western society and be misunderstood at the same time. Practically every time I hear someone taking on evolution or global warming I hear someone presenting himself as a brave crusader against scientific paternalism, as if we were Soviets promoting Lysenko or the army keeping black men out of planes due to ‘poor night vision.’ It’s fun when conservatives become brave defenders of postmodern thought, but it’s less entertaining to see how well the tactic works.
Maybe I’m noodling here, but it strikes me that the country is fertile ground for creationists crying scientific paternalism because outside of upper level college electives, that is the way most of us are taught. That certainly described my pre-college experience, with the single exception of, Dr. Sayles, who asked my 9th grade class a question about the growth of tree branches on day 1, never answered it, and put the question on the final after we’d figured it out for ourselves.
That NCLB rules leave even less room for a teacher like Dr. Sayles to operate thus strikes me as even more of a loss. Facts are an important part of understanding science, but they’re not such an important part that we can afford to leave the rest out altogether.
MattF
Postmodernism is a tale of epic foolishness– but I don’t think you can blame it for the right-wing attack on science. I think theories like creationism and global warming skepticism are fairly straightforward politicizations of scientific questions.
After all, it’s not controversial to note that the models and theories you will hear from a given economist will depend on the politics of the given economist. Why should biology and climatology be exempt from this sort of connection? Well, I can think of a few reasons, but that’s not my point– my point is that the opponents of ‘standard’ theories of biology and climatology have a political, not an epistemological agenda.
It’s important to get this right. The issue is politics, not philosophy.
Dave C
Tim,
This aspiring biologist thinks you’re right on.
BrianM
The philosopher of science Ian Hacking comes — more or less — from the "social construction of reality" camp, but he has an interesting take on it: "if you can spray it, it’s real". It came about because he was hanging around with some scientists who were trying to discover free quarks by a modification of the Millikin oil-drop experiment. They were using a hovering niobium sphere instead of a falling oil drop. To control its movements, they would spray it with positrons. That struck Hacking because he was interested in the sort of controversies that once surrounded particles like electrons and, later, positrons. How do you decide whether they’re really real, as opposed to something you made up to make calculations come out right and explain experimental results?
His answer was that if the phenomena is stable enough that you can use it as a tool in the investigation of completely unrelated phenomena, you’d be a chump not to consider it real — whether or not it’s "really real."
He’s a frustrating writer. His sentences aren’t convoluted, especially by the standards of philosophy/sociology of science, and he doesn’t overdo the jargon, but I somehow still find him hard to read. But the ideas are interesting.
The story comes from Representing and Intervening.
chris
Sounds good.
Now tell us the answer about branches!
Jeff Eaton
Many years ago I read a nice summary: imagine modernists and postmodernists as umpires in a great existential baseball game. The ‘hard’ modernist says, "There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call ’em like they are." The ‘soft’ postmodernist says, "There’s balls and there’s strikes — and I call ’em like I see ’em." And the ‘hard’ postmodernist says, "There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothin’ until I call ’em."
I’ve always felt that the ‘soft’ approach is an honest one, and unlike hard postmodernism it doesn’t prevent us from treating the "calls" as authoritative if they’re based on the best evidence we can muster. You’re very right, though, that for all of the frothing and venom directed toward the academic world (humanities in particular) for swallowing postmodernism, both social and political conservatives have been far more enthusiastic about using it as a rhetorical tool in the ‘culture wars’.
maryQ
"Maybe I’m noodling here, but it strikes me that the country is fertile ground for creationists crying scientific paternalism because until we reach college electives that is the way most of us are taught."
Well, if you are "noodling" here, which I understand to mean fishing with bare hands (thanks, Wiki), I think you just caught one.
I’m a biology professor, and I teach an upper level elective. Even though I see it happen year after year, on about Jan 6 or 7 or 8, it is always a little bit of a shock to me to see how many high-performing BIO majors enter my 400-level class thinking their task is to be passive recipients of what I tell them, and to memorize all the little red, blue, yellow and green pictures of things, like, say, bacterial flagella, that look just like little machines. Is it any wonder that absolutely nutty and anti-scientific garbage like ID can even be considered by college educated people as a viable explanation for the natural world?
OK, now I am going to amazon.com to buy that book.
Thanks, Tim.
MobiusKlein
A man with no hairs on his head is bald.
So is a man with one hair, or even 5.
But the man with 20000 hair is not bald.
Which hair changed him from being a bald man?
Brick Oven Bill
Jefferson told us that we should consider every opinion, and let reason prevail. We have abandoned this concept that served America so well for so long.
This is because our system of government has changed. The electorate in Jefferson’s day was taxpaying males. Today, only one in six Americans is a taxpaying male, and everybody gets to vote. Democracy has declared war on excellence, and reason was the first victim.
Bad things happen when reason is abandoned. Things that are worse than self esteem challenges.
KG
The creationist crap isn’t post-modern, it’s pre-modern. It’s a rejection of scientific inquiry and reason in favor of a greater revealed truth. Pre-modernism and post-modernism, as schools of thought, have a lot in common, mainly in their opposition (for very different reasons) to modernism. The difference between the three camps is that pre-modernists believe all Truth has been revealed by the Divine, modernists believe that truth may be discovered through inquiry and the continuing application of reason to acquired knowledge, while post-modernists believe that there is no truth but what we make.
Our problem is that we do not live in a clearly "modern" or "post-modern" world. Ours is a hybrid world where ancient, pre-modern, modern, and post-modernism principles and institutions interact. And that is just in the West.
Tim F.
Although they grow wider with time, tree branches only add length at their tip. Don’t think I will ever forget that.
BTW, I also never saw a teacher hated as much as Dr. Sayles. Most students really do not like thinking for themselves.
Nate W.
@Brick Oven Bill:
Damn lowered expectations. Don’t women know that if they want to achieve excellence, they need to grow a penis?
JL
In the last two decades, our education system has veered off course by not teaching, critical thinking. Most Americans realize that our educational standards are not as high as they should be, but there is a vast disagreement on how to fix it. Although, I am personally appalled about the idea that creationism be taught in Science classes, there is a strong movement in the South that teaching this will solve the problems. I personally don’t know if God’s appearance in the classroom is post or pre-modernism and that doesn’t matter but his appearance doesn’t encourage critical thinking. Now that’s real noodling1
jrg
I don’t think creationism has anything to do with postmodernism.
One time I asked: "If Jesus dying was part of God’s plan, how was Judas giving Jesus up a betrayal"? The answer I got was "some theologians believe that Judas was an agent of God".
You can use theological texts to come up with anything. It’s bullshit, but blind submission to authority is all a lot of people know. It’s also why some people cannot comprehend freedom of religion.
That’s because you’re not in a position to capitalize politically on profound ignorance of science. If you think about it, GOP politicians view their base with as much contempt as the rest of us do.
If you were making a living selling snake oil to a bunch of fools that pride themselves on being suckers, would you clue them in? I wouldn’t.
JL
@jrg: True! Unfortunately, a profound ignorance of Science has hurt our country.
Delia
Postmodernism is a foundation of sand, but the Rovians found out a bit of its vocabulary provided a nice cover for some of their bullshit. That may be where the link to creationism, if there is one, comes in. Also to all the anti-global warming and anti-environmental stuff.
As far as epistemology goes, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays I’m a free-lance Kantian. On Tuesdays and Thursdays I’m a neo-Platonist. On weekends I just watch teevee.
JL
@Delia: I wish we would have a discussion on why they were able to frame this in such a way; that they could reap benefits out of making fools out of the masses.
Brick Oven Bill
The ‘blank slate’ theorists acknowledge that a handful of people left eastern Africa back around 30,000 years ago, encountered other hominids, and prevailed over them. After that, it is assumed that the evolution of the human mind stopped and we are all equipped with the same ‘blank slate’ brain. This does not seem reasonable to me. It sounds like a feel-good University theory.
I would think that the Homo sapiens that moved west, to Western Africa, and remained in a tribal hunter-gatherer environment, would have had one set of mental evolutionary pressures. Homo sapiens that moved north and became pastoralists and farmers would have had a second set of mental evolutionary pressures. Those northerners who later adopted industrialized societies would have had a third.
As an example, Bill Gates, in the American environment that rewards intellectual ability, has the opportunity to have many offspring. But the same Bill Gates, if dropped into Papua New Guinea, would probably have trouble surviving a week.
I doubt the NCLB program would have room for a person who voices the reasonable opinion that public educational resources should be concentrated on students who are biologically capable of putting them to the best use.
Incertus
@Delia:
I think that sums it up pretty well, because it’s pretty clear that the right-wing–especially online, but in the "public intellectual" realm as well–is good at taking postmodern concepts, dumbing them down to the point where they sound like simple, and then applying the dumbed down versions to whatever position they’re trying to attack. That’s what makes Stephen Colbert such a freaking genius–he pulls off the act and then drives it to its logically absurd conclusion and shows how empty it is.
Chuck Butcher
Hmmm.
We know that there is the "thing itself"
We know that the very fact of observing causes change
We know that we are imperfect observers
I’ve noticed over time that the definitions proposed by philosophies have a real difficult time with complicated systems (that is a nice way of saying they’re bullshit). I’m inclined to think that people involve themselves in such endeavors as a means to income.
Maybe calculus is a better term, the idea of accepting no perfect answer but getting incrementally closer to it. Creationism fails that one, evolution does not. Did I invent a new philosophical term? Hardly, calculus in itself is a philosophy.
Dave Trowbridge
I think the term you’re looking for is "critical realism."
Josh
Tim, I think your point can be nicely summarized as a philosophical interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The HUP says that it is fundamentally impossible to measure the position and momentum of any particle at the same time with perfect accuracy. We will never know the precise state of any object in the universe – let alone the entire universe as a whole.
A philosophical corollary is that, while an objective reality exists, human consciousness is incapable of perceiving it perfectly.
I don’t know if there’s any real truth to this. (I have a bachelor’s degree in physics, but you’d be disappointed to find out how rarely the HUP is relevant to actual physics.) Still, it’s a very fascinating idea.
cleek
this reminds me of one of my least-favorite pseudo-sciences: the New Age crackpottery which uses the vocabulary and surface-level metaphor of relativity and quantum physics to describe and market its pseudo-scientific mysticism. someone skimmed "A Brief History Of Time" and semi-understood a few passages from the early chapters before giving up, smoking a joint, and deciding that all those molecular and sub-atomic "vibrations" that Hawking was talking about could be used to encode and embody "souls" and "auras" and "molecular memory".
ack
Emma Anne
I’m liking "objective humility" a lot. Also "if you can spray it it’s real."
libarbarian
I don’t think creationism has anything to do with postmodernism.
The point is that Creationists have harnessed post-modern criticisms of science to their own ends and will continue to do so if they have success.
In doing so, however, they may only further discredit postmodernism.
dbrown
What a load of nonsense this thread is.
libarbarian
In theory I agree, but
1)- The biggest practical problem with this is that it’s so easy to conjecture a plausible "evolutionary" explanation for things that it’s very tempting to jump to incorrect, hastily arrived, conclusions.
For Example: There’s a plausible evolutionary explanation for whatever you want to believe about "natural" Female Sexuality.
-OR-
Take your pick of these or many other explanations for whatever conclusion you want to believe.
This ease has been, and will continue to be, abused to rationalize prejudices.
2)
I would accept that basic lifestyle differences across hundreds or thousands of generations could well produce "evolved" genetic differences in populations but It is VERY debatable that the time since industrialization has been long enough to see any "evolution" in any meaningful sense. I would seriously object to any rush to believe that the new modes of life required by industrialized societies have yet had any measurable effect on our genepool from a "selection" point of view.
Now, if you want to talk about the effect of mixing heretofore unmixed populations and the world-wide mingling of genepools that has increased since industrialization, then I’m open to it, but I would demand solid data for any claim that the past 200 years have been enough to change our genepools via selection.
The Grand Panjandrum
This argument dovetails quite nicely with Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan. I will have to read the book you linked.
Pennypacker
I remember reading The Closing of the American Mind in college. At the time I thought his attack on hard relativism was well argued, but his prescription of "just teach the classics of Western literature and everything will take care of itself" was dumb.
Since then I’ve always thought it was deeply ironic (oh postmodern irony!) that the right would adopt those same radical strategies in the name of reactionary politics. The absurd "teach the controversy" tactics of creationists is just one example.
Interesting to note that Bloom’s mentor was none other than Leo Strauss, father of neoconservatism. Back then I didn’t know who Strauss was. More irony: Strauss endorsed the notion of "noble lies" to control the population. The cynicism is breathtaking.
RobW
"if you can spray it it’s real."
My cat certainly believes this.
passerby
I just began reading a book I got for Christmas titled: Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts*. It’s similar to the theme of your post as it discusses the phenomenon of human perception.
Here are a few lines from the first paragraphs:
"AS FALLIBLE HUMAN BEINGS,all of us share the impulse to justify ourselves and avoid taking responsibility for any actions that turn out to be harmful, immoral or stupid. Most of us will never be in a position to make decisions affecting the lives and deaths of millions of people, but whether the consequences of our mistakes are trivial or tragic, on a small scale or national canvas, most of us find it difficult, if not impossible, to say, "I was wrong; I made a terrible mistake." The higher the stakes–emotional, financial, moral–the greater the difficulty.
"It goes further that: Most people, when directly confronted with proof that they are wrong, do not change their point of view or course of action but justify it even more tenaciously. "
I consider most education curricula to be indoctrination. I’ve got an advanced degree in a biological science and have on occasion butted heads with academics who were not a open minded as I regarding biology.
For example, Sheldrake’s concept of the morphic field. Since scientists cannot nail it down, it’s brushed off, ignored and usually mocked.
More light has been let in of late in books by Richard Gerber, M.D.: Vibrational Medicine, and the exuberant Bruce Lipton, PhD: who wrote "The Biology of Belief".
But by and large, these concepts have not become centerpieces in the curricula of traditional medical schools.
When I was a newly registered dietitian, I was taking a diet history from a patient with throat cancer. She told me that orange jello gave her gas. I foolishly tried to explain that because of her condition she was swallowing a lot of air when she ate. Of course she persisted in her belief that orange jello gave her gas and insisted that red jello was ok.
Since then I’ve learned to operate within the belief system of the person I’m trying to get through to. If not, any disagreement can devolve into an argument or maybe even a pie fight–deaf ears on both sides.
I hope I haven’t clouded up an already complex subject but more and more I can see the interrelatedness of things and I find human behavior fascinating.
*by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
Thoroughly Pizzled
For some good fun, visit the Postmodernism Essay Generator.
Brick Oven Bill
Re: "On the one hand you have scientific progress followed by scientifially sanctioned racism, eugenics and worse."
The San Diego cheerleaders are very attractive and seem to be having a good time.
Eugenics has had a bad name since WWII but, in my opinion, is an ethical practice. If the noble goal is to minimize human suffering, as I think it should be, tell me those San Diego cheerleaders are not leading a richer life than this woman.
In my opinion, everyone should have a right to have one child, as reproduction should be a human right. But any system where the State supports dependent mothers having large numbers of children is temporary because it will go broke. Liberty is another noble goal. Only independent populations can enjoy liberty, and a certain level of talent and/or motivation is required to be independent.
The other argument for eugenics is strategic. Genetics will soon change the nature of nation-states. Those political entities that embrace strong, smart reproduction policies and/or mandates will, within a century, simply overwhelm and take the resources of those with undisciplined reproductive practices, who will then starve. Life sucks and then you die. Cheerfully yours.
Duke of Earl
@Tim F.:
The purpose of state schools is to advance the purposes of the state.
Is it to the advantage of those who would control the state for their own purposes that ordinary citizens be capable of sustained rational thought?
Duke of Earl
@Josh:
I don’t see how this could be not true, our very senses are imperfect and extremely limited and our consciousness depends on our senses for information about the outside world.
ColoRambler
My Ph. D. thesis committee (chemistry) at this state school apparently never got that memo. I guess they were more interested in the technical details of chemical biophysics research than churning out modern-day Lysenkos.
Definitely did not get that memo. Nor did hundreds of other state schools’ science, engineering, history, law, etc. programs.
Brick Oven Bill
The credentialed man from the State has spoken.
Jen R
@jrg:
Theology often reminds me of when I was an X-Files fan back in the day, trying to come up with a coherent explanation of the overarching plot.
robert green
tim
you should read "anathem", the new neal stephenson novel. it’s all about perception/conciousness and various quanta. it’s an awesome achievement that is purpose built for the kind of person who would write such a blog post as this.
R-Jud
@Jen R:
Theology, along with descriptions of extra-biblical things like the Rapture and what Heaven is or isn’t like, often reminds me of fan fiction.
Duke of Earl
@ColoRambler:
I was responding to this pair of paragraphs by Tim F in his OP.
People who go through Phd programs are not "ordinary" citizens, they are actually quite far from the ordinary.
Duke of Earl
@robert green:
Got it for Christmas and just finished yesterday.
It was an interesting read although I did find a minor mistake on the part of Stephenson, he has a character on a world where Grecians never existed speak of isosceles triangles, Stephenson should have made up one more word to replace isosceles like he did all the other Grecian terms in the book.
celcus
You really need to read Robert Anton-Wilson. As well as blowing the doors off of most concepts of "reality", as in the "my reality is more real than yours" that defines much of the discussion. And they are horribly entertaining. In short, his philosophy can be summed up as "I don’t believe anything, but i have many suspicions."
Cosmic Trigger is a good place to start. The preface is online: http://rawilson.com/trigger1.html And there are a number of videos of him on youtube.
Tim F.
Read it in a couple of very long sittings. It struck me as a bit of a wankfest for high-functioning humanities majors, and I was annoyed that Stephenson elided the problem of resource limitation in civilization cycles. Recasting Kant as a deviant religious sect was amusing.
Overall it was a fun read and, like you said, pitched right at a guy like me.
Tim F.
You have to be kidding me. I put down his first illuminati book when I realized I was reading hippie conspiracy gibberish dipped in softcore porn to boost sales.
Hyperion
@Jeff Eaton:
who knew umpire Bill Clem was a post-modernist!
i believe he said this originally although the only cite can find is, strangely, at Dobson’s site (?!) so no linky.
Hyperion
wrt "reality", i’m going with Potter Stewart’s explanation of hardcore porn on this one: "I know it when I see it!"
works for me. ;=)
why isn’t this categorized under navel-gazing?
Jeff Eaton
Yes, but the rhetoric employed in its defense (and in the offensive against established scientific theory) is pure postmodernism.
Jeff Eaton
Just did a bit of digging and it appears that the umpires joke is attributed to Walter Truett Anderson from his book "Reality isn’t what it used to be"…
passerby
Celcus, this describes my current outlook on life. Uh-oh. I’m going to be mocked in 3..2..1..
Tim, looks like you’re engaging in some expert mockery here. Stringing together many words (hippie, conspiracy, gibberish, softcore porn) that cast aspersions on those who have a view of reality that is different from your own. [ An opinion to which you are entitled. ]
It’s seems to be the prevalent response to those who hold opinions that are directly counter to or even slightly different from the narrative put out by corporate media and their contributors: government, academia, scientists, pundits, you know, "experts".
If we step outside currently held beliefs we’re considered kooks. Fear of being mocked or of being viewed as stupid has a nice way of suppressing ideas that don’t fit a particular agenda. It’s an uber-efficient tactic.
"Just because someone speaks with authority, doesn’t mean they are an authority." This realization is always woven into my reasoning and supports my "question authority" approach to living.
Duke of Earl
@passerby:
That only works for those who are afraid of being called kooks or other names.
For those of us who don’t care what others think or have been called kooky all their lives it makes little difference. Get to a certain age and most of us don’t much care what others think any more, at least I know it’s working that way for me.
ColoRambler
Granted. I was responding to your reluctance to think about unavoidable conclusions of your own argument, namely:
1) State schools’ purpose is to advance "the purposes of the state".
2) [substitute any major state university X] is a state school.
3) Therefore, X’s purpose is to advance "the purposes of the state".
Since 3) is false (for most of its academic programs, not just Ph. Ds), but 2) definitely isn’t false, that really makes you wonder about 1). It has a grain of truth, but only a grain — you have to carve out loads of exceptions (as you started to do) just to make it even sort of work. Not something you want as a basis for a general argument.
Duke of Earl
@ColoRambler: By the time the average person gets to post-secondary education the damage has already been long accomplished.
Certainly there are exceptions to the rule I stated, there are exceptions to most rules, societal ones particularly.
From Tim F’s OP, disagreed with by one person so far:
I stand by my argument that the powers that be are not served by an electorate that is truly well educated in the sense of being able to think clearly and accurately. I think the events of the last eight years show that the American people as a whole are not able to think clearly and accurately.
passerby
Good point DofE and the rank and file masses far outnumber those willing to put it out there so, many ideas are successfully suppressed.
Same here. There are many who, I believe, would like to embrace viewpoints that are outside of mainstream, but haven’t yet found the power of their own voices and are waiting for it to become "popular" before chiming in with an agreement.
This, to me, lies at the heart of the matter.
Jrod
You realized wrongly, jackass. You do realize that Illuminatus! was experimental fiction and had a co-author, while most of the rest of Wilson’s work is not?
Ah, never mind. Use your fancy framed degree to beat away the hippies that are trying to infect you with their cooties. Talk shit about them. Obviously they have nothing to teach you.
Marshall
A point I like to make is that science does not start with a full understanding of reality, it approaches it. Similarly, the scientific method may have biases, but it also has a means of overcoming them.
Is there bias ? Yes. Can it be hard to see ? Sure. Do people assume things without good reasons ? Of course.
But, science doesn’t rely on being perfect, or even being right. Science is a means to decide whether some statement about reality is closer to being right than some other statement. So, while neither perfect knowledge or perfect objectivity is possible, over time it is possible to asymptotically approach knowledge and objectivity, by showing in a step by step fashion that this statement is more correct, this method is more objective, than the available alternatives. To put it in the terms of the above quote, while we might be lead to wrong conclusions, over time, being wrong, they are likely to be corrected.
That is something that I find most non-scientists don’t really understand very well.
Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony
You have to be kidding me. I put down his first illuminati book when I realized I was reading hippie conspiracy gibberish dipped in softcore porn to boost sales.
I’m with Tim on this one. I probably would have loved this book, too, if I’d read it in my teens.
anticontrarian
my personal working assumption is that reality exists, but that it is fundamentally unknowable.
what can be known is limited to immediate sense-data and its reflections in the mental landscape that each of us presumably inhabits. think schrodinger’s cat meets through a glass, darkly. because we are humans, and our brains work a certain way, we perceive the world as quanta (small packets of information) which become the anchor-points for the picture that our minds backfill in order to provide us with a coherent narrative or at least a pattern we can recognize and pretend to understand. most of these narratives and patterns are received (like your gene sequences are received), and they color perceptions and thoughts (the only knowable things) in the way that the spectrum of visible light colors the things you see when you look around you.
the trick is to try and align the narratives and patterns through which you understand the world as closely as possible to how reality and the world actually are. because, while reality is fundamentally unknowable, it can be (and is, constantly) approximated. the closer your approximation, the more efficacious your worldview.
you know, kind of like the way science works, if your starting point is the uncarved block.
as for intelligent design, it is thoroughly postmodern, as it is one metanarrative among many that is competing for dominance in a politicized landscape. that it doesn’t pass the rationality laugh test that modernism supposedly gave us is irrelevant. quite a bit of postmodern thought (hard relativism et al) doesn’t pass that test either.