Postmodernism is destroying our brains, culture and civilization

[Monoriu]

I tried to read the wiki article on postmodernism but failed to understand it.

You've seen "Serial Experiments Lain", right?  The director, (Ryūtarō Nakamura) wanted to create a work that Japanese and Americans would interpret differently based on their different cultures.  That (in a simplified form) is the essence of post-modernism; people will view things differently based on their different experiences, or cultures or other similar distinctions.

Nope.  I've heard of it, but I have so far avoided it.  I dislike shows that are too abstract

[The Minsky Moment]

But it can still be interesting to examine the many component parts that make up a state, and determining which and what combinations of them make something count as a state and why.

Yes, it's not difficult to descend into pointless wank or esoteric details but useful stuff can still be gleaned - at least IMO.

Of course, however there is a whole field of science doing just that : epistemology.

Epistemology is not a field of science, nor is it a theory of the state.

[The Minsky Moment]

The basic premise of postmodernism is that ideas do not exist in and by themselves.

That's the basic premise of all non-Platonic thought systems.  Including empiricism.

To give a very crude example, there is no such thing as a "State" in the real, knock-knock world.

That's more of a self-evident proposition, then a strictly post-modern one.  The notion that a "State" has some independent existence behind that constructed by humans and their social relations is a pretty odd view.

If this is your definition of postmodernist, then everyone is (and should be ) postmodernist, other than some really hard-line neo-platonists.

[The Minsky Moment]

On the OP, there always has been shitty scholarship, and always will be.  Shitty scholarship has always sought to hide behind specialized jargon or technique and always will.  There's plenty of non-postmodern shitty scholarship and there always will be.  And there's plenty of post-modern shitty scholarship and always will be.

Dog bites man story.

[garbon]

Dog bites man story.

And there is not even a story.

[The Minsky Moment]

As long as we are on this subject, a useful reminder of the limits of data-driven methods in the social sciences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

This is not just a cutesy sort of poke - there is much debate and discussion in the social sciences about the limitations of statistical and data analysis.  Lack of real replicability and cherry picking p-values are open scandals.  There is a reason why emphasis has shifted on the empirical end to the use of natural experiments.  But those have their own limitations and problems.

To be clear this is not to say empirical methods should be abandoned in the social sciences in favor of purely qualitative analysis or criticism.  But people in glass houses should regulate their stone throwing activities more carefully.

[DGuller]

As long as we are on this subject, a useful reminder of the limits of data-driven methods in the social sciences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

This is not just a cutesy sort of poke - there is much debate and discussion in the social sciences about the limitations of statistical and data analysis.  Lack of real replicability and cherry picking p-values are open scandals.  There is a reason why emphasis has shifted on the empirical end to the use of natural experiments.  But those have their own limitations and problems.

To be clear this is not to say empirical methods should be abandoned in the social sciences in favor of purely qualitative analysis or criticism.  But people in glass houses should regulate their stone throwing activities more carefully.

Yes, that is true.  When you dig down, a lot of the time, the people giving statistics a bad name are actually social scientists rather than statisticians.  But I guess you just can't get published if you don't disregard good statistical practices.

[Valmy]

But I am sorry, I realize I am intruding in your circle-jerk.

Whoops I thought an interesting conversation was going to break out. Glad Minsky came to the rescue.

[Valmy]

On the OP, there always has been shitty scholarship, and always will be.  Shitty scholarship has always sought to hide behind specialized jargon or technique and always will.  There's plenty of non-postmodern shitty scholarship and there always will be.  And there's plenty of post-modern shitty scholarship and always will be.

Dog bites man story.

I know, as I said it is what we have always done in Natural Sciences. There is really no time we could not have done this.

And there is not even a story.

Worthless bullshit gets rewarded degrees is kind of a story. Not a very new story granted.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, that is true.  When you dig down, a lot of the time, the people giving statistics a bad name are actually social scientists rather than statisticians.  But I guess you just can't get published if you don't disregard good statistical practices.

Tough to get tenure when your entire publishing history consists of a bunch of papers that say: "We looked into the following issues and examined the following variables, and the result is that we can't reject the null."

The pressure to report statistically significant results drives bad scholarship.

[garbon]

Worthless bullshit gets rewarded degrees is kind of a story. Not a very new story granted.

Maybe but then you could also always point to the need to create (worthless bullshit or otherwise) in order to get a degree.

[Savonarola]

You've seen "Serial Experiments Lain", right?  The director, (Ryūtarō Nakamura) wanted to create a work that Japanese and Americans would interpret differently based on their different cultures.  That (in a simplified form) is the essence of post-modernism; people will view things differently based on their different experiences, or cultures or other similar distinctions.

Nope.  I've heard of it, but I have so far avoided it.  I dislike shows that are too abstract

The story is (deliberately) ambiguous (that is, the story and its resolution are open to interpretation by the viewer); is that what you mean by abstract?  If so do you like Neon Genesis Evangelion?  That's similarly ambiguous.

[Monoriu]

The story is (deliberately) ambiguous (that is, the story and its resolution are open to interpretation by the viewer); is that what you mean by abstract?  If so do you like Neon Genesis Evangelion?  That's similarly ambiguous.

I've watched Neon Genesis Evangelion.  I like the characters and parts of the story, and agree that it is a masterpiece.  But I hate the ending and don't really get the symbolism.  If that represents postmodernism, then I am probably destined to be its enemy

[Norgy]

Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.

Me too. I enjoy deconstructing cultures and relativism. And annoying cunts.

[Norgy]

As long as we are on this subject, a useful reminder of the limits of data-driven methods in the social sciences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

This is not just a cutesy sort of poke - there is much debate and discussion in the social sciences about the limitations of statistical and data analysis.  Lack of real replicability and cherry picking p-values are open scandals.  There is a reason why emphasis has shifted on the empirical end to the use of natural experiments.  But those have their own limitations and problems.

To be clear this is not to say empirical methods should be abandoned in the social sciences in favor of purely qualitative analysis or criticism.  But people in glass houses should regulate their stone throwing activities more carefully.

The replicability was an issue even when I studied pol sci, especially in works regarding economic development. Most pol sci models in my field, comparative politics, were based on fairly solid empirical research, but could rarely be replicated, as history usually don't stand still. But as they were from the data they analysed, they were solid enough. Some were not, like Fukuyama's or Huntington's. Yet in their simplicity, they got attention outside the academic world.