Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00270)

> Unfortunately, we have too many people in the Society who adapt a
> Communist/post-modernist attitude towards science, where science is
> entirely psychological, and depends on one's politics.

Er, can you name 5? I certainly hear a lot of people in the TS *complaining*
about "post-modernism", but on the whole the TS seems mostly filled with old
folks who love the late 19th century texts, and long for the days when they
could believe in solid absolutes. And curiously enough, the *critics* of
post-modernism, despite their insistence on absolutes, seem to rarely notice
that very few people actually go to the extremes they quote ... but rather
have introduced points that even a lot of scientists feel are credible. Any
scientist that *doesn't* believe that there isn't a helleva lot of politics
in modern science ... well, they *aren't* a working scientist. Any scientist
that *doesn't* take into account their own prejudices and biases isn't a
very good one. The extreme of post-modernism says that everything is
psychological ... but the basic *point* is that psychology and politics
*does* have a significant amount to do with what gets studied ... what
research gets funded.

The really curious thing to me is that almost everyone that makes strident
arguments against "post-modernism" ... are themselves making the arguments
for psychological and political reasons. They bring the argument up even if
it has nothing to do with anything being talked about.

Why is it "unfortunate" that anyone in the Society adopts any particular
stance? What if a few people *do* believe in "post-modernism"? So what! Its
not as though the TS is *relevant* t5o modern society. Not like its having
an effect. Its *hardly* a society of people doing anything remotely
resembling science. -JRC