Archives for 2009

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.

Modernism And PostmodernismPost + Comments (57)