Postmodernists seem to misunderstand the natural sciences

“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

A review of “Complexity & Chaos” (audiobook)

In 1993, the original “Jurassic Park” film brought chaos theory to a wide audience. In that movie, the character of Ian Malcolm predicts that the act of bringing back the dinosaurs for this park will cause “terrible instability” (to paraphrase what he said). Many in the film’s audience probably wondered why they made a mathematician into such a prominent character for this movie. But, if you listen to this audiobook, you will see why they did so. Chaos theory has much to tell us about how unpredictable the world is. Thus, there’s more to chaos theory than what you’ve heard in “Jurassic Park” – although I love that movie, and its summary of this field. This audiobook explores the subject, and tells us what this mysterious area is all about.

A review of “A New Understanding of the Atom” (audiobook)

When the first atomic bombs went off in 1945, people witnessed the awesome power of the atom. It was so small that even microscopes failed to detect it, and yet it could cause the largest of any man-made explosions. But it was suspected even in antiquity that the world is made up of tiny particles. The word “atom” is itself of very ancient origin, and originally meant “indivisible.” But as any high school chemistry student knows, atoms are divided into much smaller parts. These include protons, neutrons, and electrons (among other things).

A review of “Einstein’s Revolution” (audiobook)

The name of Albert Einstein has become synonymous with genius. More than any other person, he is seen as the quintessential smart guy, and nearly everyone knows his name. There are other candidates for the greatest scientist in history, but nearly everyone would put Einstein on a short list. And why not? The man was brilliant. In particular, he’s associated with the famous equation “E = mc²,” later used to build atomic weapons and bring energy to the masses. There is brief coverage of that topic in this audiobook. But the main focus of this audiobook is on the theory of relativity, which may be the most astonishing breakthrough of the twentieth century.

A review of “David Hume” (audiobook)

“It is evident, that all the sciences have a relation, greater or less, to human nature: and that however wide any of them may seem to run from it, they still return back by one passage or another. Even Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, are in some measure dependent on the science of MAN; since the lie under the cognizance of men, and are judged of by their powers and faculties … consequently we ourselves are not only the beings, that reason, but also one of the objects, concerning which we reason.”

– Introduction to David Hume’s “A Treatise of Human Nature” (1739-1740), as written by the author himself

I had heard very little about David Hume, before listening to this audiobook. But after listening to this presentation, I was (and still am) convinced that he is one of the greatest philosophers of all time. His influence was massive, and he wrote on many topics – something that was more common then. For example, he wrote on history, politics, and economics as well as philosophy. But he is most famous for his original contributions to the philosophy of science, and the debate over what is the most reliable foundation of human knowledge. It was in this regard that Immanuel Kant once paid him a heartfelt compliment. Kant said that “the suggestion of David Hume was the very thing, which many years ago first awakened me from my dogmatic slumber.” (See the full quote and its citation here.)

“Man is the measure of all things” … or is he?

“It is indeed the opinion of Protagoras, who has another way of expressing it. Man, he says, is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that are not.”

– Socrates, as recorded in Plato’s “Theaetetus”

Is all truth in the “eye of the beholder?” Protagoras thought so, but Socrates didn’t …

Socrates and Plato both reported some words from the Greek sophist Protagoras, in Plato’s dialogue “Theaetetus.” The dialogue features a character by the name of “Socrates,” believed here to represent the actual and historical Socrates. The character of “Socrates” thus quotes Protagoras as saying that “Man is the measure of all things.” Thus, we seem to have the word of both Plato and Socrates that Protagoras really said this. But what does it mean that “Man is the measure of all things”? As Socrates correctly argues, it seems to mean that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder” – or, at least, that Protagoras believed this to be the case. “If I believe that something is true,” say some today, “then it must be true.” But this belief leads to a number of problematic conclusions, as Socrates proceeds to point out in this same dialogue, the “Theaetetus” – named after one of the other characters in the dialogue. Nonetheless, some today (notably certain postmodernists) still proclaim that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder.” It is acknowledged that some things really do work this way, but it would seem that other things do not. Thus, this dialogue is a timeless meditation on objective truth whose arguments need to be heard today. Thus, it may be worth examining here in this post.

Socrates

A review of “Isaac Newton’s New Physics” (audiobook)

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

– Isaac Newton, in a letter to Robert Hooke on 5 February 1675

Sir Isaac Newton revolutionized how human beings see the world … and the universe. He may have been the most influential scientist of all time. It is said that Albert Einstein kept a picture of Newton on his “study wall,” alongside his other pictures of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. But in Newton’s time, the word “scientist” did not exist yet, nor did the phrase “natural science.” Instead, the subject was described as “natural philosophy,” making Newton into a “natural philosopher.” In modern philosophical terms, Newton would be in the empirical tradition, although he showed the influence of some Continental Rationalists like René Descartes as well.

A review of “Immanuel Kant” (audiobook)

“I openly confess, the suggestion of David Hume was the very thing, which many years ago first awakened me from my dogmatic slumber, and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy quite a new direction.”

– Immanuel Kant, in the Introduction to his “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics” (1783)

Immanuel Kant may have been the most influential philosopher since antiquity. He was active in virtually every area of philosophy, with writings on many of its subfields. These included epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics. He was probably the most influential of all of the German philosophers, and helped to establish a tradition of writing philosophical works in the German language.

A review of “Descartes, Bacon, and Modern Philosophy” (audiobook)

“Cogito, ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am.”)

– René Descartes, in his works “Discourse on the Method” (1637) and “Principles of Philosophy” (1644) – both works give the Latin version, although the earlier work also gave a French version (“Je pense, donc je suis”) that is actually the original

People know René Descartes more for his mathematics than for his philosophy. If you’ve ever taken algebra, you’ve probably seen two-dimensional equations graphed on what is still called a “Cartesian” coordinate plane. It is named after him for good reason, for he pioneered this “merging together” of algebra and geometry. But Descartes was also a very influential philosopher, who took part in the age-old debates over what is the most reliable basis of human knowledge. He answered that it was “reason,” and many in the Western world have since followed his lead in this regard.

A review of “Dimensions of Scientific Thought” (audiobook)

What is science, and how does it work? Are scientific theories certain, or can they change with the evidence? These are the kinds of questions that this audiobook asks. People associate science with a body of knowledge, about DNA or the planet Jupiter or whatever it might be. But science is more a way of thinking about things, than it is a body of knowledge. It’s a way of testing our beliefs, and evaluating them against the evidence. It has roots deep in ancient history, but our understanding of it has evolved dramatically over the centuries. This is one of a number of things that this audiobook makes clear.

A review of “Friedrich Nietzsche” (audiobook)

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”

– Friedrich Nietzsche

He was the most controversial thinker in the entire history of philosophy …

I have never been a fan of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, or any part of his philosophy that I have ever heard about. He may be the most controversial person in the entire history of philosophy. He attacked virtually every aspect of the existing culture, and advocated disturbing ideas in their place. But there are still people today who believe in his ideas, so I thought that it would be worthwhile to know something about them. Thus, I listened to this audiobook (narrated by Charlton Heston), to learn about him. I was not disappointed, and learned much about him and his ideas – much of it disturbing, as you will see in this post.

A review of the BBC's “The Story of Maths” (by Marcus du Sautoy)

“Maths is the true language that the universe is written in – the key to understanding the world around us.”

– Marcus du Sautoy, in the conclusion of this series

In America, we often shorten the word “mathematics” to just “math.” In Britain, they retain the pluralization of “mathematics” to make it “maths,” even when shortening it in this way. Thus, no one from Britain would ever be likely to say just “math,” and would probably consider it an Americanism that would sound a little strange to them. But whatever you call it, I've been tutoring people in the subject since 2012, as a professional “math” tutor (and I am an American, as you may have guessed from my spelling of this word).

The difference between skepticism and close-mindedness

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

- Aristotle

Open-mindedness is defined as a "read[iness] to entertain new ideas" (which is positive)

It's long been fashionable for people in the Western world to claim they are "open-minded," and so this is claimed even by people who are not that way at all. (No one says with pride that "Yeah, dude, I'm closed-minded!") Yet closed-mindedness seems to be as common as it ever was, with people refusing to entertain any number of ideas they don't agree with. But what does it mean to be "open-minded," anyway? The website of Princeton University defines the word open-minded as "ready to entertain new ideas," and this seems to me to be appropriate. How does one know if an idea is false, if one has not heard it? (Or in the words of the Princeton definition, "entertain[ed]" it?) How does one know if they will like this food, if they haven't tried it? And how does one know if this idea is wrong, if they haven't heard it out?

Aristotle