Posted on 02/20/2006 5:54:51 PM PST by jennyp
But as many of us FREvos have argued, it really makes perfect sense when you look at creationism vs. evolution on a deeper level. This math professor, who doesn't sound like a conservative but certainly is anti-postmodernism, gets it too.
PING to all opponents of post-modernism, deconstructionism, and epistemological nihilism...
|
Postmodernists, creationists, and militant Islamists - an odd combination if I have ever seen one.
This is what is so weird...people allying with people who will end the end eat them.
Having this conversation with another crap-for-brains right now on another thread. Science, when done right, is a systematic investigation of nature. Nature is out there and it isn't anything old silly you want it to be based on your convenience of the moment.
LOL!!
Science, when done right, is a systematic investigation of nature.
Absolutely!
So what is "Social Constructivism" in real world terms again?
Something like this, I submit, lurks beneath the pompous and scatterbrained epistemological latitudinarianism that Steve Fuller offers in defense of Intelligent Design Theory. That in itself won't save him, I believe, from the disdain of most social constructivist colleagues. He is giving aid and comfort to too dire an enemy. His career is probably headed for some fairly rocky shoals. Nonetheless, he is merely extending to a nasty gang of right-wing religious nuts the logic that has led the science studies community and its hangers-on to speak up for tribal shamans, UFO cultists, and homeopathists.
Fuller doesn't have a clue, does he? The schmuck has no idea what would happen to him if his buddies achieved their ambitions.
This thread isn't getting the attention it deserves. But it's good that this article is posted.
It's the notion that knowledge is "constructed" in the context of the society in which people live. Commonly used to denigrate scientists as people who construct knowledge to advance the agenda of the white male power structure. Or to put it another way, science does not objectively define reality; rather, scientists fudge the answers to serve the existing political and social institutions (yeah right).
Social constructivism is also used to justify the idiotic idea that there is no such thing as a right answer; children smply construct their own knowledge based on their own experiences. Silly stuff but a lot of NEA types love it.
I think this goofiness caught on because it facilitates the giving of degrees to people who cannot master statistics or logic. Keeps the money coming into the university coffers.
"This bizarre project is propped up by Fuller's dogma that one need not actually understand standard science to criticize it or to pose profoundly different alternatives." [emphasis added]
No wonder the anti-Evo truffle-heads embraced him!
Global warming fits the above fine.
Yes, I see it as a good reference, especially whenever a FreCreo starts complaining about "all those know-it-all high-priest scientist in their ivory temples who are forcing their silly ideas on all us normal folk."
Reminds me of William F. Buckley
He looked better in a BEARS uniform...
I would have thought it the use of science to *assault* existing political and social institutions.
The point is not that there is no one in science with an agenda. It's the idea that everyone gets together in support of some vast conspiracy to support the existing power structure that is so goofy.
Reminds me of William F. Buckley.
I can almost hear him spitting that out on Firing Line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.