« An Insightful Comment | Main | “There Is No Evidence for That” »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Charles N. Steele

Regarding the issue of whether post-modernism is more susceptible than other subjects to being faked, someone observed there's an objective definition of "fake" in other subjects. Postmodernism effectively precludes this by definition. Postmodernism elevates subjective reaction, emotion, feelings, whim to an epistemological standard and rejects all others. Intellectual rigor, use of actual data, logical proof, careful statistical testing and inference - for postmodernism these are all instances of privilege and power. There's no such thing as faking postmodernism to a postmodernist.

That these writers have now been accused of doing so by postmodernists reveals that even postmodernists understand it's a scam. Otherwise they could generate an entire new literature from this - analyzing the power and privilege that results in some articles being labeled "authentic" and others "fake."

John Pepple

Yes, that seems reasonable. Once you abandon objectivity, then the line between fake and authentic is very hard to draw. It is already hard to draw it between science and pseudo-science (the last time I looked anyway), and with postmodernism it becomes even harder.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

My Books