House on the beach (Exposing the scientific myth of postmodernists)

Author: (American) Kreiger, edited by Cai Zhong, translated by
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2003-06-01
Features: Shandao Shang De Fangzi—Exposing the Scientific Myths of Postmodern Thinkers, recently published by Nanjing University Press, is a follow-up work to The Sokal Affair and the Science Wars (Nanjing University Press, May 2002), serving as another powerful response by Western science defenders against the anti-science of postmodernism. The emergence of the contemporary scientific defense war has profound historical roots. Since the 1970s, the term "Philosophy of Science" has gradually been replaced by "Science Studies" in Western academia, indicating a shift from internal to external history in the study of science. "Science Studies" is a very broad term, fundamentally referring to the study of science from various 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 taken an extreme stance, exhibiting (1) extreme relativism; (2) ideologicalization of science. As a result, scientists refer to such research as "postmodern science studies" or the anti-science. Its characteristics are: challenging the logical standards, epistemological values such as objective truth and experimental evidence of scientific research. This hostility is not expressed in the misuse of science and technology in the social and political external environment, but rather 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. Science is portrayed as a sophistry detached from empirical testing, with an emphasis on science belonging to different life forms and different language games. This critique has been elevated to the level of politics and ideology: science is seen as a construction of bourgeois social relations, a misleading ideology of bourgeois ideology; science is viewed as a tool of male supremacy, a means of controlling and legitimizing power; science is seen as the ideology causing all global ecological disasters; science is regarded as the vanguard of imperialist invasion and colonial rule. In short, science becomes power, a game run by money, and a means serving its sponsors. It is worth noting that this anti-science appears under the guise of "The Academic Left," aiming to create a politically correct science. Since the Renaissance, left-wing have been allied with science, opposing obscurantism, advocating rational thought, and believing in the analysis of objective reality (both in nature and society) as the most powerful ideological weapons against mysticism and obscurantism promoted by authoritarian forces. 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 embraced various forms of relativism, joining the anti-science camp.
The Scientific Defense War
In 1994, Gross, a renowned biologist at Virginia University, and Levitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University, published Advanced Hoaxes—The Academic Left and the Science Wars, marking the beginning of the scientific defense war against the so-called Academic Left. The Academic Left, in essence, is a school designed to promote misunderstandings of science, its methods, and its conceptual foundations, extending this misunderstanding to political critiques of science. The Academic Left seems to express a strong hostility toward the intellectual 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, Gross and Levitt's Advanced Hoaxes: The Academic Left and the Science Wars portrays the Academic Left as primarily composed of humanities scholars and social scientists who have never engaged in scientific research but now attempt to delve into the field of science. These include: (1) the "Strong Program" 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 (ed.) published Fleeing from Science and Reason (1996), a collection of papers from the 1995 World Scientists' Congress in New York. This global conference was not about discussing scientific issues but a deliberately organized denunciation of the anti-science of postmodernism, hence its name "Fleeing from Science and Reason." The scientists attending expressed anger over the rampant constructivism and relativism and the real danger posed by the "enemy" of science from the cultural left. They argued 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 to draw conclusions about scientific work, the introduction of bizarre terms, and the manipulation of language games, all filled with misunderstandings of scientific knowledge. This error is evident in many famous scholars, such as the postmodern masters Derrida, Lacan, and Lyotard, as well as heavyweights in "Science Studies" like Latour and Collins. Such practices easily provoke the legitimate anger of scientists, leading to the "Science Wars" between scientists and postmodern thinkers. Notably, after reading Advanced Hoaxes, Alan Sokal, a physicist at New York University, was shocked and alarmed by the spread of the anti-science and decided to write a hoax to test whether the editors of the cultural left journal Social Text truly understood what they were critiquing. The result was that the editors failed the test, leaving the "postmodern science studies" in an awkward position.
Revelation and Critique
In The Beach 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 carrying political significance for the pro-choice movement, 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, a physicist, analyzes Weber's work on gravitational wave detection and the Weinberg-Salam model of weak and electromagnetic interactions, demonstrating that scientists abandon or accept certain scientific models based on objective experimental evidence, rather than, as postmodernism claims, on the political interests of scientists or the rhetorical products of negotiation techniques. Pining analyzes the famous work of social constructivism, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and Experimental Life, from historical facts, showing that Hobbes and Boyle were not as radically opposed in their scientific worldview, methodology, or political views as the authors suggest. Jacob, a sociologist, critiques the relativistic distortion of 17th-century British history by Scheffer and Latour. The book also includes several rebuttals to feminist critiques. A renowned American biology and gender studies group conducted a "case study" of "passive eggs and brave sperm," analyzing biological phenomena. This analysis has now been published in Newsweek as an example of how gender ideology influences scientific content. However, Gross, a biologist, points out that this is a "myth" and fundamentally contradicts basic biological. Newman, a historian, analyzes the alchemical worldview revered by feminism, noting that this worldview is more cruel than mechanistic in its attitude toward nature. In the critique of postcolonialism, Kreiger highlights the absurd consequences of multicultural "education reforms." Notably, Landa's analysis of postcolonialism reveals that alongside the denigration of science and modernity by postmodernism, the uncritical promotion of "local knowledge" has created a fertile ground for various forms of irrationality and anti-science 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 this poses a catastrophic threat to developing countries undergoing modernization.
About the Author
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 has 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.