Thankfully they seem to be more rare up here at Western. They’ve got a regular table outside the co-op and hand out leaflets at the farmers market, but none of the more aggressive tactics. I really don’t like them.

Most of the hard feelings about this (small subclass of) scientists vs post-modernism probably date back to some late 90s culture-wars clashes fomented by people like Paul Gross, Norman Levitt, and Alan Sokal. In my opinion, [some] people on both sides behaved like jerks, and ultimately from a intellectual point of view it was a sideshow. A few years later, everything goes on more or less as before for both scientists and literary critics, as it should, and the only trace left is the hard feelings.

He’s definately got a cult following.

At UW, at least, all the students are above average.

are you really that needy ?

Does “UW” stand for “University of Wobegon“?

Note that linked from that Wikipedia page, there are some extremely amusing articles:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

(You just have to love the photo caption on the first link above.)

But note that all the people I know who were or are at UW — except for one — are indeed above the average of those people I know who were or are at UW!

There’s lots of silliness in the post-modern movement, but of course don’t fall for the fallacy of the apocalypse of deficiency: that there aren’t any good points, or that good ones couldn’t be made through adjustment of excesses etc., in the critique offered by a given flawed movement.

At UW, at least, all the students are above average.

Does “UW” stand for “University of Wobegon“?

(-;

Humanists — philosophers, historians, literary scholars — are specialists at doing things with texts. Humans, including scientists, are text-producing animals. Postmodernism, so-called, simply claims that no texts are sacred, even scientific ones. If you re-read Julianne’s post & the subsequent comments, it actually turns out to describe an argument about the authority of texts. LaRouche is making a (ridiculous) claim about, say, Newton. LaRouche’s texts can be dismissed on both scientific and textual grounds: his use of rhetoric masks a devious distortion of preceding texts. As I said earlier, it is not the business of science to worry too much about why & how LaRouche distorts sources & language, but it is the business of the humanities. And there is actual knowledge to be gained by looking at those texts through a humanistic lens. I suspect we might agree on this. Where we might disagree is when the humanist turns to the rhetoric, history, and cultural presuppositions of scientific texts. Just as science can be done well or badly, so the analysis of texts can be done well or badly. Any intellectually honest discussion would seek to decide what defines “well” & “badly” in this context, rather than dismissing with a wave of the rhetorical hand a whole class of inquiry, often with only the most superficial understanding of what is being dismissed.

So, again, I’m not looking for confrontation, but neither do I feel the need to stifle my irritation when commenters above (not you & not the majority), imply that my academic discipline is equivalent to the cult-writings of Lyndon LaRouche.

There’s a nugget or two in the anti-dummies pages, but overall there a low signal to noise ratio mathematics wise. Some of it can be a nice trip through mathematical history, albeit in a slated way, but there is a lot of waffle. You can pick out the choicest portions, and a lot of other unrelated mathematical goodies from Lyle Burkhead’s critique page.

P.S.
Regardless, the groups essay on Gauss’ determination of Ceres’ orbit is definitely worth reading.

You know perfectly well that a straw-man caricature of post-modernism is exactly the same thing as post-modernism.

joseph duemer said

On what evidence do you base this piece of wit, Caveman? Your statement bears the same marks of certainty as any crank’s description of his new perpetual motion device or of any fundamentalist’s assertion about his god. Which post-modernists (broadly speaking) have you read? Latour? Rorty? Foucault? At least LaRouche appears to have read (in a manner of speaking) the scientists he attacks. Your assertion is pure, uncritical, fundamentalist scientism & in the Church of Scientism, you already know who is elect & who is damned, without having to go to the trouble of thinking.

I solved the equation

X = straw-man caricature of X

and found the solution

X = post-modernism

“though some might find LaRuouche’s texts interesting objects of study — the texts of the mad are often fascinating and sometimes reveal a good deal about the cultural background from which they emerge.”
Indeed an interesting phenomena. What makes a man work so hard in order to gain knowledge and next spew out those facts in a completely muddled and irrational manner? .
Julianne mentions “his perennial presidential campaign”, which seems to reveal a great need to stand out, an emotional imbalance that results in an irrepressible need to “epaté les bourgeois” in order to gain notoriety. The logics, form or credibility of the statements so made, become secondary to that need.
For a moment I was worried about the harm that such mentalities can inflict on a naif mind, but thinking about it a little more, I believe that only those who are predisposed to accept and adhere to such nonsense, fall in the trap.
Logical thinking requires a great mental effort and dedication. For some it is difficult, some times impossible, to distinguish the “I wish (or need) it were so” from the logical and sensical conclusions.

Don’t be disingenuous … but anyone who has hung around science blogs or sat on university committees with scientists is familiar with the generic attacks on straw-man caricatures of post-modernism.

Don’t be disingenuous. You know perfectly well that a straw-man caricature of post-modernism is exactly the same thing as post-modernism.