House on the beach: The exposure of the scientific myth of postmodernists: The exposure of the scientific myth of postmodernists

Author: Norita Kreiger
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-06-01
Features: The Sand House—Exposing the Scientific Myths of Postmodern Thinkers, the latest translation published by Nanjing University Press, is another powerful work by Western science defenders in the postmodern anti-science trend, following The Sokal Affair and the Science Wars (Nanjing University Press, May 2002). The emergence of the contemporary scientific defense war has a profound historical background. After the 1970s, the term "Philosophy of Science" was gradually replaced by "Science Studies" in Western academia, indicating a shift from the internal history of science to its external history. "Science Studies" is a very broad term whose core content refers to studying science from different social dimensions, including Social Studies of Knowledge (SSK), Science and Technology Studies (STS), feminist perspectives on science, postcolonial perspectives on science, etc. However, many mainstream studies have gone to extremes, exhibiting (1) extreme relativism; (2) ideologicalization of science. Therefore, scientists refer to such research as "postmodern science studies" or the postmodern anti-science trend. Its characteristics are: challenging the logical standards, epistemological values such as objective truth and experimental evidence in scientific research. This hostility is not expressed in the misuse of science and technology in the social and political external environment, but in the arbitrary attacks on the content and methods of science, scientific rationality, scientific truth, and scientific spirit, ultimately leading to a comprehensive attack on science, reason, and human civilization, portraying science as a sophistry detached from empirical testing, emphasizing that science belongs to different life forms and different language games. This critique has been elevated to the level of politics and ideology: portraying science as a construction of bourgeois social relations, a misleading ideology of bourgeois ideology; portraying science as a tool of male supremacy, a means of controlling and legitimizing power; portraying science as the ideology causing all global ecological disasters; portraying science as the vanguard of imperialist invasion and colonial rule. In short, science becomes power, a game run by money, a means serving its sponsors. It is worth noting that this anti-science trend appears under the guise of "The Academic Left" (The Academic Left), aiming to create a politically correct science. Since the Renaissance, left-wing thought has always been allied with science, opposing obscurantism, believing in rational thought and the analysis of objective reality (both in nature and society), and believing that these are the most powerful ideological weapons against mysticism and obscurantism promoted by authority. However, over the past 20 years, many "progressive" and "left-wing" humanities and social scientists, influenced by postmodernism in France and feminism in the United States, have abandoned the intellectual heritage of the Renaissance and have embraced various forms of relativism, joining the anti-science camp.
The Scientific Defense War
In 1994, Gross, a renowned biologist at the University of Virginia, and Levitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University, published Higher Superstition—The Academic Left and Its Discontents, marking the beginning of the scientific defense war against the so-called Academic Left. The Academic Left, in essence, is a school specifically designed to promote misunderstandings of science, its methods, and its conceptual foundations, and this misunderstanding has extended to political critiques of science. The Academic Left seems to express a strong hostility to the powerful legacy of the Renaissance, condemning science as reactionary obscurantism and labeling it as a machine maintaining the current social order—all of which they seek to overthrow and disdain.
From an external perspective, in Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Discontents, Gross and Levitt portray the Academic Left as primarily composed of humanities scholars and social scientists—individuals who have never engaged in scientific research but now attempt to delve into the field. These include: (1) the "Strong Programme" in Social Studies of Knowledge (SSK); (2) French postmodernists; (3) feminist critiques of science; (4) radical ecologists' strong rejection of science and technology; (5) the creationist movement of the new century; (6) postcolonial perspectives on science. Subsequently, Gross, Levitt, and Martin Lewis (Martin Lewis) edited Against Science and Reason (1996), a collection of papers from the 1995 World Scientists' Congress in New York. This global conference of scientists was not about discussing scientific issues but a deliberately organized denunciation of the postmodern anti-science trend, hence its name "Against Science and Reason." The scientists attending expressed anger at the rampant constructionism and relativism and the real danger of the "enemy" of science posed by cultural leftism, not only to science itself but to human culture as a whole. They believed that the anti-science phenomenon is fundamentally irrational, and abandoning science and reason would lead to social catastrophe.
The Academic Luddites
Another feature of postmodern "Science Studies" is the frequent ambiguity in its discussions of science (even misrepresentations), the use of metaphors and in presenting specific conclusions of scientific work, the introduction of bizarre terminology, the manipulation of language games, and a pervasive misunderstanding of scientific knowledge. This error is evident in many famous scholars, such as the postmodern masters Derrida, Lacan, and Lyotard, as well as the heavyweights of "Science Studies," such as Latour and Collins. Such practices easily provoke the legitimate anger of scientists, leading to the "Science Wars" (Science Wars) between scientists and postmodern thinkers, sparked by Gross in 1996. Andrew Ross, the deputy editor of the prominent cultural left journal Social Text, organized a special issue titled The Science Wars to counter the negative effects of Higher Superstition on postmodernists. Among them, Alan Sokal, a physicist at New York University, published a fraudulent paper titled Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, which ignited the ongoing "Science Wars" between scientists and postmodern thinkers. It is worth noting that after reading Higher Superstition, Sokal was shocked and uneasy about the rampant anti-science trend and decided to write this fraudulent paper to test whether the editors of the cultural critics of science truly understood what they were critiquing. The result was that the editors failed the test, leaving "postmodern science studies" in a very awkward position.
Revelation and Critique
In The Sand House, in addition to scientists exposing the "fashionable nonsense" of postmodernism (such as the "scientific pronouncements" of postmodern masters: the mathematical constant π and the speed of light c becoming variables, the choice and equivalence axioms in set theory having political significance for the pro-choice movement of feminism, etc.), authors with different backgrounds provide a more comprehensive analysis and deeper critique of "postmodern science studies." This reflects the critique of postmodernism reaching a more serious level of theoretical analysis. Franklin analyzes Weber's work on gravitational wave detection and the Weinberg–Salam model of weak and electromagnetic interactions, showing that scientists abandon or accept certain scientific models based on objective experimental evidence, rather than, as postmodernism claims, that scientific achievements are the result of scientists' political interests or the product of rhetorical techniques in negotiation. Pining analyzes the famous work of social constructionism, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life by Schapere and Shapere, from historical facts, demonstrating that Hobbes and Boyle were not as radically opposed in their scientific worldview, methodology, or political views as the authors suggest. Sociologist Jacob analyzes the relativistic distortions of 17th-century British history by Schapere, Shapere, and Latour. The book also includes several papers countering feminist critiques. The renowned U.S. biology and gender studies group conducted a "case study" of "passive eggs and valiant sperm" in biology, an analysis that has now been published in Newsweek as an example of how gender ideology influences scientific content. However, biologist Gross points out that this is a "myth" and fundamentally contradicts basic biological. Historian Newman analyzes the alchemical naturalism revered by feminism, noting that this view of nature is more cruel than mechanicism in its attitude toward nature. In the critique of postcolonialism, Kreiger highlights the absurd consequences of multicultural "education reforms." It is worth noting Landa's analysis of postcolonialism. She points out that alongside the uncritical promotion of "local knowledge" in postmodernism's denigration of science and modernity, a fertile ground for various forms of irrationality and anti-science trends has emerged in some developing countries. Denying the boundaries between superstition and science, ideology and knowledge inevitably leads to superstition, mythology, and ideology masquerading as science. All of these pose a catastrophic threat to developing countries undergoing modernization.
Author Bio:
Norita Kreiger is a professor of the history and philosophy of science at Indiana University in the United States. Her research areas include the history of science, the philosophy of science, and science culture. In science culture studies, she edited Nature and Causes of Homosexuality: A Philosophy and Scientific Inquiry and co-authored Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies with Daphne Patai.