“Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ‘eternal’ physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ‘objective’ procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.”
– Alan Sokal’s “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (1996) – later revealed by the author to be a hoax, which he used to demonstrate how academic journals that lack peer review can allow complete nonsense like this to slip by unnoticed
Disclosure: I lack training in the natural sciences (but, then, so do most postmodernists)
Postmodern ideas have now gained a foothold in the humanities and social sciences. For example, these views seem to be particularly popular among professors of literature and philosophy. Many of them argue that all truth is both relative and subjective – a doctrine known as “relativism.” Some of them have even argued that morality is relative, to either the individual or the broader culture – a better subject for two other posts. (To be released later on.) Postmodernists are also skeptical of what they call “meta-narratives,” or grand narratives about the larger world. And, in the context of the natural sciences, they believe that the natural sciences support their relativist view of things. They believe that mathematics and physics both deny the possibility of a true knowledge of nature. They cite a number of math and science ideas (four in particular) to support these strange interpretations. But it seems that they have grossly misunderstood these ideas, which do not actually make the claims that the postmodernists attribute to them. Thus, it might be helpful to set the record straight, and show what the sciences actually say about relative truth and the theory of knowledge. I should acknowledge that, like my current targets, I admittedly lack training in the natural sciences or higher mathematics myself. I freely admit this up-front. But, then, most of my postmodern targets seem to lack training in these subjects, too – virtually all of them, it seems. Thus, any criticisms on this score would have to go both ways, if true fairness is to be observed.
Jean Baudrillard, postmodern philosopher and sociologist
Did Einstein’s theory of relativity actually say that everything is relative?
As mentioned above, postmodernists believe that all truth is both relative and subjective. Socrates debunked this doctrine more than 2,000 years ago, as I have shown elsewhere. (Here, if you’re interested.) Thus, I will not be trying to duplicate that coverage here. Rather, I will examine a valid scientific theory that is often cited by postmodernists in this context. Specifically, I will examine Einstein’s theories of relativity – that is, both his general theory and his special theory of relativity. These theories suggest that both space and time are relative, and that some odd things will happen when traveling near the speed of light. That is, length is contracted, and time moves more slowly – the strangest effect of such travel. This is what Einstein showed. However, Einstein’s special theory of relativity also gives two important postulates. One is that “The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration). This is known as the principle of relativity.” (see source) The other says that “The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of light source or observer. This is known as the principle of light constancy, or the principle of light speed invariance.” (see source) How do postmodernists interpret these theories? Basically, that Einstein proved that “all truth is relative.” In fact, Einstein never said anything of the kind – much less that morality is “relative” to individual or societal beliefs. Suggesting that the laws of physics are “invariant” in all inertial frames of reference suggests a certain constancy to the laws of physics, with very few exceptions acknowledged herein. And relativity is only meant to be applied in certain contexts. I’m no scientist, but it seems like the postmodernists may have gotten the science badly wrong – suggesting that they may not have understood Einstein as well as they think they have.
Albert Einstein, who gave us the general and special theories of relativity
Did the Heisenberg uncertainty principle actually say that everything is uncertain?
Postmodernists also believe that a true knowledge of nature is impossible. To support this, they cite another valid scientific theory, which is quantum mechanics. That is, they cite the Heisenberg uncertainty principle – sometimes called the “Heisenberg indeterminacy principle.” The namesake of this principle is the German physicist Werner Heisenberg. The principle says that, when looking at very small objects in the quantum realm, there’s a trade-off in the precision of certain important concepts. That is, the more accurately you need to measure the position of such a small object, the less accurate will be your measurement of its momentum. And the more accurately you need to measure the momentum of such a small object, the less accurate will be your measurement of its position. This could be summed up as a sort of trade-off between the accuracy of the two measurements. Wikipedia clarifies that “The quintessentially quantum mechanical uncertainty principle comes in many forms other than position–momentum. The energy–time relationship is widely used to relate quantum state lifetime to measured energy widths but its formal derivation is fraught with confusing issues about the nature of time.” (see source) How, then, do postmodernists interpret the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Basically, that Heisenberg proved that “everything is uncertain.” Thus, postmodernists conclude from this that a true knowledge of nature is impossible. But, in fact, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says no such thing. It says only that there are trade-offs between the accuracy of certain measurements in quantum physics. Again, I’m no scientist, but it seems like the postmodernists may have misinterpreted Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics a bit. Perhaps they should have stayed awake in high school physics, long enough to understand what Heisenberg was actually talking about.
Werner Heisenberg, the physicist who gave us the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
Did modern chaos theory actually say that everything is chaotic? (Hint: It didn’t)
Postmodernists also cite another valid theory from mathematics and the natural sciences. That is, they cite modern chaos theory. To quote Wikipedia, chaos theory “focuses on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. These were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[footnote] Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals and self-organization.[footnote] The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[footnote] A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.” (see source) This was popularized in the 1993 movie “Jurassic Park.” This theory also says that “Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to errors in measurements or due to rounding errors in numerical computation, can yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[footnote] This can happen even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior follows a unique evolution[footnote] and is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[footnote] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[footnotes] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos theory, or simply chaos.” (see source) What, then, do the postmodernists conclude from this? Namely, that everything is “chaotic” – and, again, that a true knowledge of nature is thus rendered “impossible.” They would be on slightly stronger ground if they said that chaos theory holds many (even most) things to be unpredictable. But, given that the chaos is held to have “deterministic” elements to it, it would seem that the postmodernists have again badly misinterpreted the science. Chaos theory actually holds that life works best at the edge between order and chaos – as an audiobook on chaos theory explains. (More about that here.) One thus gets the feeling that their understanding of chaos theory comes from little more than watching “Jurassic Park,” which is not meant as a scientific treatise – just as a science-fiction film.
Ilya Prigogine, chaos theorist
And did Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say that everything is incomplete?
Finally, postmodernists often appeal to two theorems from higher mathematics. That is, they appeal to Gödel's two incompleteness theorems. These both come from the German mathematician Kurt Gödel. As Wikipedia puts it, the first incompleteness theorem states that “no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.” (see source) Continuing from this same page, “The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.” (see source) These theorems were followed by others, such as “Tarski's undefinability theorem on the formal undefinability of truth, Church's proof that Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable, and Turing's theorem that there is no algorithm to solve the halting problem.” (see source) So how do postmodernists interpret Gödel's theorems? Namely, that Kurt Gödel proved that “everything is incomplete.” Postmodernists further conclude from these theorems that everything is “inconsistent” and “unprovable.” But, in fact, these theorems relate only to specific mathematical claims – not to everything as a whole. Even if the theories are true, they don’t say the things that the postmodernists attribute to them. I don’t know from what math classes the postmodernists are getting these theorems, but they might have again benefited from staying awake in these classes once in a while – and reading the fine print in the wording of the theorems. One can only conclude that postmodernists do not understand math and science as well as they think they do.
Kurt Gödel, the mathematician who gave us Gödel’s incompleteness theorems
The above paragraphs show what these theories actually say (which is far more reasonable)
I mentioned earlier that most postmodernists are relativists, who basically believe that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder.” This has consequences for their view of the sciences. That is, they believe that science is “just another way of looking at the world,” and is no more valid than any other way. Even the postmodern social scientists, of whom there are many, are skeptical of the ability of science to discover objective truth. Indeed, they don’t believe in “objective truth” in the first place – everything is relative to them, as mentioned earlier. Thus, a mathematically-trained physicist named Alan Sokal once determined to test a postmodern journal. He published a fake article (quoted earlier), in which he questioned the validity of science with fashionable postmodern jargon. In 1996, the article was actually published in “Social Text,” an academic journal of cultural studies. He later admitted that the article was a complete hoax, meant to show that a lack of peer review from qualified experts could allow complete nonsense to pass by unnoticed. He certainly seems to have made his point, and even made front-page headlines in the New York Times to boot. In the original article, he had even written that “The content and methodology of postmodern science thus provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project, understood in its broadest sense: the transgressing of boundaries, the breaking down of barriers, the radical democratization of all aspects of social, economic, political and cultural life.” (Source: “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” published 1996) Many had applauded Mr. Sokal for his arguments. Thus, when he later revealed the article to be a hoax, many were furious – especially the academic journal “Social Text” itself, and the postmodern philosophers like Jacques Derrida who were quoted in his original article. The editors said that they believed that the article had “represented a change of heart, or a folding of his intellectual resolve.” (see source) In other words, they did not then believe the article to be a parody, as they seem to have admitted here. But when they recognized its satirical nature, they said that “its status as parody does not alter, substantially, our interest in the piece, itself, as a symptomatic document.” (see source) Thus, Alan Sokal had demonstrated his point, showing that postmodernists don’t really believe in science – even if they say that they do.
Alan Sokal, a prominent physicist who criticized postmodernism
Conclusion: These postmodernists should have stayed awake in math and physics classes
Thus, one can only conclude that postmodernists are grossly ignorant of higher mathematics and the natural sciences. They hear certain postulates and theories in isolation from the bigger picture, and then make grand sweeping pronouncements about both knowledge and reality. I don’t have a problem with being ignorant of either math and science (or both). Indeed, I am no mathematician, and I am certainly not a physicist. The problem is that postmodernists seem to believe themselves to be extremely well-informed about these things (and even sell themselves as such), when they are in fact grossly misinformed about the cited theories. They should have stayed awake in their math and physics classes long enough to understand the content, before making these grand pronouncements about the ability of the sciences to find objective truth. Given that many of these postmodernists are also social scientists, you would think that they’d have some respect for the power of the scientific method. But they seem to be more well-versed in pseudoscience than true science – meriting a certain amount of caution in giving authority to academic articles, particularly when they come from the humanities and social sciences. The postmodern view of science seems to be basically as bad as their view of most other issues, revealing it to be an unsound perspective on the real nature of truth.
“It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ‘reality’, no less than social ‘reality’, is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific ‘knowledge’, far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities.”
– Alan Sokal’s “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (1996) – later revealed by the author to be a hoax, which he used to demonstrate how academic journals that lack peer review can allow complete nonsense like this to slip by unnoticed
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment