Read and weep: https://twitter.com/real_peerreview
We already have Marti badly playing this role. Do we need to add another player to the pantomime?
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2016, 08:47:51 AM
We already have Marti badly playing this role. Do we need to add another player to the pantomime?
Took the words right out of my mouth. :Embarrass:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChPFynPWYAA7wzI.jpg:large)
LOL. The standards for being a good man these days is pretty low. You never raped anybody? You did not abandon your kids? You are not in jail? You have a job? A++++ man. I would like to think my fellow guys out there for allowing the standard to be so low.
Also studying how nice people are in Nebraska seems humorous for some reason. Allies in New Jersey don't give a fuck.
The increasing esotericism of the social sciences really is an unfortunate development, though. I blame the demand for originality in master's theses. It forces people to be... creative.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2016, 08:47:51 AM
We already have Marti badly playing this role. Do we need to add another player to the pantomime?
Natural Science people mocking social science people is a long and proud tradition -_-
I liked the one about how we should consider the conspiratorial rantings of the people when doing climate research instead of just science. Or how having ticks on your body is beneficial.
Women and cows are NOT the same.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2016, 08:47:51 AM
We already have Marti badly playing this role. Do we need to add another player to the pantomime?
Yes we do.
Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:11:25 AM
Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.
I actually am pretty cool with post-modernism but what arts were you referring to?
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:12:52 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:11:25 AM
Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.
I actually am pretty cool with post-modernism but what arts were you referring to?
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
I consider myself to be post-modern when I write stuff on my own dime.
And that's how we got crap.
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
I think the problem with postmodernism is that, whilst it started out as a healthy critique of accepted narratives and ideologies, it has led to relativism and then to anti-pragmatism and anti-empiricism of sorts - basically a belief that if something seems to be true, then the reality must be the opposite.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 10:35:36 AM
I think the problem with postmodernism is that, whilst it started out as a healthy critique of accepted narratives and ideologies, it has led to relativism and then to anti-pragmatism and anti-empiricism of sorts - basically a belief that if something seems to be true, then the reality must be the opposite.
Agreed. It led to people thinking that protesting against neo nazis was wrong because hey, everyone has a right to march.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:37:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 10:35:36 AM
I think the problem with postmodernism is that, whilst it started out as a healthy critique of accepted narratives and ideologies, it has led to relativism and then to anti-pragmatism and anti-empiricism of sorts - basically a belief that if something seems to be true, then the reality must be the opposite.
Agreed. It led to people thinking that protesting against neo nazis was wrong because hey, everyone has a right to march.
If you are going to mischaracterize my positions, at least do it in the thread where the discussion is already ongoing, rather than spread it to other threads.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:37:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 10:35:36 AM
I think the problem with postmodernism is that, whilst it started out as a healthy critique of accepted narratives and ideologies, it has led to relativism and then to anti-pragmatism and anti-empiricism of sorts - basically a belief that if something seems to be true, then the reality must be the opposite.
Agreed. It led to people thinking that protesting against neo nazis was wrong because hey, everyone has a right to march.
If you are going to mischaracterize my positions, at least do it in the thread where the discussion is already ongoing, rather than spread it to other threads.
Already done. And I repeat, whoever you are following these days has missed the point badly.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
Art is always ideological, the "problem" is that postmodernism has made us acutely aware of it. Producing and receiving art without an ideological intent or interpretation is becoming increasingly hard. Mistrust of ideology and challenging of such ideology has become an ideology in itself, in a way. And yeah, that's not good.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, I guess, but it has been a good ride. Postmodernism challenged lots of stuff that needed challenging.
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
Art is always ideological, the "problem" is that postmodernism has made us acutely aware of it. Producing and receiving art without an ideological intent or interpretation is becoming increasingly hard. Mistrust of ideology and challenging of such ideology has become an ideology in itself, in a way. And yeah, that's not good.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, but it has been a good ride. Postmodernism challenged lots of stuff that needed challenging.
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
Art is always ideological, the "problem" is that postmodernism has made us acutely aware of it. Producing and receiving art without an ideological intent or interpretation is becoming increasingly hard. Mistrust of ideology and challenging of such ideology has become an ideology in itself, in a way. And yeah, that's not good.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, but it has been a good ride. Postmodernism challenged lots of stuff that needed challenging.
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
Meh, they existed before.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
Agree about the cynicism. Not sure about Marty.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 11:00:37 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
Agree about the cynicism. Not sure about Marty.
:hug:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
Art is always ideological, the "problem" is that postmodernism has made us acutely aware of it. Producing and receiving art without an ideological intent or interpretation is becoming increasingly hard. Mistrust of ideology and challenging of such ideology has become an ideology in itself, in a way. And yeah, that's not good.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, but it has been a good ride. Postmodernism challenged lots of stuff that needed challenging.
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
Irony is not just the opposite of wrinkly.
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2016, 11:05:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
Art is always ideological, the "problem" is that postmodernism has made us acutely aware of it. Producing and receiving art without an ideological intent or interpretation is becoming increasingly hard. Mistrust of ideology and challenging of such ideology has become an ideology in itself, in a way. And yeah, that's not good.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, but it has been a good ride. Postmodernism challenged lots of stuff that needed challenging.
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
Irony is not just the opposite of wrinkly.
Yeah, I remember telling you that once. Glad you remember to use it from time to time, although in inappropriate circumstances.
QuotePostmodernism is destroying our brains, culture and civilization
Hear, hear, back to
modernisme:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ciadeideas.com%2Fhotelbarcelonacatedral%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fturismo.jpg&hash=47ee9357f17e9c0fdcc83c0a18514fb869438b5e)
Quote from: Savonarola on May 05, 2016, 11:26:41 AM
QuotePostmodernism is destroying our brains, culture and civilization
Hear, hear, back to modernisme:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ciadeideas.com%2Fhotelbarcelonacatedral%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fturismo.jpg&hash=47ee9357f17e9c0fdcc83c0a18514fb869438b5e)
:wub:
I always mixed up Modernism/Modernisme when I first tried having art conversations in English.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2016, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
Art is always ideological, the "problem" is that postmodernism has made us acutely aware of it. Producing and receiving art without an ideological intent or interpretation is becoming increasingly hard. Mistrust of ideology and challenging of such ideology has become an ideology in itself, in a way. And yeah, that's not good.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, but it has been a good ride. Postmodernism challenged lots of stuff that needed challenging.
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
Meh, they existed before.
Fair point
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2016, 11:05:58 AM
Irony is not just the opposite of wrinkly.
Yeah, I remember telling you that once. Glad you remember to use it from time to time, although in inappropriate circumstances.
:lol: Irony is not just the opposite of wrinkly.
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2016, 12:46:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2016, 11:05:58 AM
Irony is not just the opposite of wrinkly.
Yeah, I remember telling you that once. Glad you remember to use it from time to time, although in inappropriate circumstances.
:lol: Irony is not just the opposite of wrinkly.
:lol:
Well I'm getting good laughs out of the Twitter account. Thanks, Hami!
I tried to read the wiki article on postmodernism but failed to understand it.
Same. I got really confused when it started citing itself and discussing the difficulties of writing a Wikipedia article.
Isn't the whole point of postmodernism that everyone lies to make themselves look good?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2016, 08:21:31 PM
Isn't the whole point of postmodernism that everyone lies to make themselves look good?
I don't have the slightest idea. I just sweep it under list of "things I do not understand and probably won't affect me" and move on.
The basic premise of postmodernism is that ideas do not exist in and by themselves. Because they are defined and conceived on an abstract level by human beings, they are concepts both which are created, influenced, and amended by our personal or collective evolutions, biases, backgrounds, or interests.
To give a very crude example, there is no such thing as a "State" in the real, knock-knock world. Nothing exists that is physically a "State" in and by iself in the world. A State exists because our senses and intelligence has framed the idea of a State, with its borders, symbols, national flags, miliary, etc. Early modern western male-centric 'patriarchal' societies have created and developed the idea of "State" to suit their personal interest, and since they became the dominant social force the idea has spreaded to become the main definition of a political unit rather than some deep-in-the jungle, obscure definition that never took root.
Of course, this opens to all sorts of crazy and not-so-crazy analyses of observable phenomena (for instance a Marxist analysis of the State, a Feminist analysis of the State, a Libertarian analysis of the State, a Scientologist analysis of the State, yada yada, yada), and due to vested interests it opens the door wide open to normative judgments - it won't surprise you that it is mostly the dominant, Western ideas that get 'observed' by these kinds of approaches.
Furthermore, its basic postulate renders impossible any observations and descriptions of human concepts through the scientific method, because they are not rooted in the realistic universe but in the collective minds of human beings. And I won't surprise you that most College social 'science' departments are dominated by postmodernism-inspired teachers, especially anthropology, ethnology, and Liberal arts.
I call postmodernism - or more preciselt Constructivism - social science for the lazy. It takes much more work and intellectual reflection to seek hypotheses and quantify data, rather than lace a nice story laced with right and wrong around the analysis of an "object". And yes, there no such thing as "a" State you can feel and touch, but it takes a special kind of dishonesty to deny there aren't States in the world, right now.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2016, 10:36:28 PM
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.
Science requires a wide consensus over the definition of the object being studied. Otherwise, anyone and everyone can define the object moving the goalpost to suit their own conclusion.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 05, 2016, 08:28:49 PM
I don't have the slightest idea. I just sweep it under list of "things I do not understand and probably won't affect me" and move on.
It does affect you, because any Maoist or post-Maoist conception of social science in your university departments would be postmodernism.
Quote from: Drakken on May 05, 2016, 10:27:17 PMAnd I won't surprise you that most College social 'science' departments are dominated by postmodernism-inspired teachers, especially anthropology, ethnology, and Liberal arts.
It would surprise me, for I very much doubt this.
It clearly has entered the scholarship; it is difficult to ignore the impact, say, Foucault, has had. Whether taking what he wrote into account makes one "postmodernism-inspired" I will leave to your judgement. Perhaps as much as these departments are "Aristotle-inspired", or "Marx-inspired", or "Rawls-inspired".
But I am sorry, I realize I am intruding in your circle-jerk.
Quote from: The Brain on May 05, 2016, 03:46:13 PM
Well I'm getting good laughs out of the Twitter account. Thanks, Hami!
It's great and terrifying at the same time. Just think of the people who actually write this shit.
Ah well, if there is no state then I think I will stop paying taxes.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 05, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Drakken on May 05, 2016, 10:27:17 PMAnd I won't surprise you that most College social 'science' departments are dominated by postmodernism-inspired teachers, especially anthropology, ethnology, and Liberal arts.
It would surprise me, for I very much doubt this.
It clearly has entered the scholarship; it is difficult to ignore the impact, say, Foucault, has had. Whether taking what he wrote into account makes one "postmodernism-inspired" I will leave to your judgement. Perhaps as much as these departments are "Aristotle-inspired", or "Marx-inspired", or "Rawls-inspired".
But I am sorry, I realize I am intruding in your circle-jerk.
:D
Postmodernism is garbage thought up by morans.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 05, 2016, 08:18:30 PM
Same. I got really confused when it started citing itself and discussing the difficulties of writing a Wikipedia article.
:lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on May 05, 2016, 08:08:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 06, 2016, 06:52:22 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 05, 2016, 08:08:12 PM
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 :contract:
Quote from: Drakken on May 05, 2016, 10:39:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2016, 10:36:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on May 05, 2016, 10:27:17 PM
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.
QuoteTo 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2016, 09:03:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 05, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2016, 08:55:08 AM
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.
QuoteAnd there is not even a story.
Worthless bullshit gets rewarded degrees is kind of a story. Not a very new story granted.
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2016, 09:11:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2016, 09:18:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 06, 2016, 08:21:07 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on May 06, 2016, 06:52:22 AM
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 :contract:
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.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 06, 2016, 01:09:52 PM
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 :lol:
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:11:25 AM
Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.
Me too. I enjoy deconstructing cultures and relativism. And annoying cunts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2016, 09:03:50 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2016, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2016, 09:18:03 AM
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.
So perhaps there is no point to giving out degrees in social sciences if the only reason people do anything in social sciences is to get a degree. What's the social benefit (pun intended) of having such studies if it's mainly bullshit people make up?
Quote from: Norgy on May 06, 2016, 07:48:09 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:11:25 AM
Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.
Me too. I enjoy deconstructing cultures and relativism. And annoying cunts.
Is annoying a verb-derivative noun or an adjective here? :hmm:
It's a gerund operating as an adjective.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 01:14:22 AM
It's a gerund operating as an adjective.
Rather as a noun, as I said - unless you are saying he likes cunts that are annoying.
Edit: which given Norgy's past stances on feminism could actually be true, I'll give you that.
OK, I think I see. Does he like annoying cunts or does he like deconstructing annoying cunts? But either way, annoying is still not a noun. The nominal form of annoy is annoyance. Annoyance cunt doesn't make any sense.
No, no. If you use the word "annoying" to mean "to annoy", isn't it a noun? I mean it is neither a verb nor an adjective. But I may be wrong as I have not studied English grammar in a scientific sense.
I thought it was a conjugation of the verb, like a participle but different, but not entirely sure.
Much of social science as it is practiced today could be gently put to sleep without negative consequences for society. Many social scientists don't take their subject matters seriously. If they did they wouldn't do BS reasearch on them, but good research.
I think it's not as much about not taking it seriously, but about motivation and ethics. Sure, natural sciencists are also subject to vagaries of ego and there are some politics involved (like climate change or some health sciences) but most of the stuff they do is not as ideologically charged as social sciences are. Many social scientists go into their studies with a mindset of a crusader, not observer or researcher, in mind - and this mindset is perpetrated by the crazy people who now control social science faculties in the academia. They each "peer review" each other's research and pat each other on the back in a sort of echo chamber of bad ideas.
In other words, there is a very blurred line between what the world is and what it should be.
You are what you do, not what you think you are. I don't see them taking stuff seriously.
Quote from: The Brain on May 07, 2016, 04:03:23 AM
You are what you do, not what you think you are. I don't see them taking stuff seriously.
I guess it's a matter of semantics - I think we are both saying the same thing - they suck as scientists.
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2016, 04:04:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 07, 2016, 04:03:23 AM
You are what you do, not what you think you are. I don't see them taking stuff seriously.
I guess it's a matter of semantics - I think we are both saying the same thing - they suck as scientists.
They do indeed.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 06, 2016, 07:36:29 PM
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 :lol:
That really wasn't related to post-modernism; I was trying to understand what you meant by "Abstract" in terms of anime. The ending of Neon Genesis Evangelion is ambiguous; it's up to you to determine what really happened and what it means. The same is true in Serial Experiments Lain. Is that what you mean by "Abstract"?
Inconclusive endings are actually a modernist trait in film, not postmodernist.
The problem with film is that since it's so much younger compared to other arts, when it reached the modernist stage, other arts were already doing postmodernism - and it was influenced by them. That's why you see loads of postmodernist traits attached to what's considered film modernism. Nouvelle Vague was hopelessly self-referential for starters. :nerd:
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2016, 02:27:26 AM
No, no. If you use the word "annoying" to mean "to annoy", isn't it a noun? I mean it is neither a verb nor an adjective. But I may be wrong as I have not studied English grammar in a scientific sense.
It is a gerund (that is, a verb used as a noun). The sentence would read "I enjoy annoying cunts." "I" is the subject, "enjoy" is the verb, and "annoying (cunts)" is the object.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 07, 2016, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 06, 2016, 07:36:29 PM
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 :lol:
That really wasn't related to post-modernism; I was trying to understand what you meant by "Abstract" in terms of anime. The ending of Neon Genesis Evangelion is ambiguous; it's up to you to determine what really happened and what it means. The same is true in Serial Experiments Lain. Is that what you mean by "Abstract"?
I think my problem with Neon Genesis Evangelion isn't just because of the inconclusive ending (even though they did it to me twice, the TV version and the movie version). But also because so many things are left unexplained. What are Angels? What's an "impact"? What are "Adam and Eve"? Why are the Angels invading the Tokyo Fortress? Most shows don't provide 100% information and some things are left for the audience to imagine. But I think Neon Genesis Evangelion over did it.
The ending. It isn't just an "inconclusive" ending. As far as the TV version is concerned, the "ending" is a two episode slide show that is obviously a result of budget problems. They ran out of money. The disconnect with the rest of the show was also great. Imagine the final 30 minutes of LoTR being a slide show, undoing everything that happened in the first 2.5 movies, declaring that all the problems happened in Frodo's head and that he could solve all Middle Earth's problems if only he could imagine a better ending. I couldn't care less if you call it modernist, postmodernist, premodernist or Jaronist. That's cheap, lazy and spitting on the audience.
The End of Evangelion movie. That's far better in terms of production values. When I watched the second half of the movie, the only words that appeared in my head were "WTH am I watching?" I had no idea what was going on, why things happened, and what the characters were doing.
That's what I meant by abstract. Probably :D
What I read about the ending of Evangelion back in the day was that the writer of the show had some kind of psychiatric issues and that he decided to stop taking his medication when he was writing the final episodes. I don't know if it's true but it fits with the truly bonkers stuff shown in them. :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on May 07, 2016, 06:39:20 PM
What I read about the ending of Evangelion back in the day was that the writer of the show had some kind of psychiatric issues and that he decided to stop taking his medication when he was writing the final episodes. I don't know if it's true but it fits with the truly bonkers stuff shown in them. :lol:
The Rebuild of Evangelion, essentially a retelling of the story, is truly depressing. I understand what is going on this time, but the story is still sad on an epic scale.
I actually haven't seen the ending of Evangelion :lol:
When it came out in Spain, we had this friend in the gang who would get the tapes and watch it first before lending them to the rest of us, and when he got to the ending he was so angry that he told us not to watch it. So we didn't. :lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on May 07, 2016, 06:10:49 PM
What are Angels? What are "Adam and Eve"?
Are you familiar with those outside the context of the show?
Quote from: celedhring on May 08, 2016, 02:23:08 AM
I actually haven't seen the ending of Evangelion :lol:
When it came out in Spain, we had this friend in the gang who would get the tapes and watch it first before lending them to the rest of us, and when he got to the ending he was so angry that he told us not to watch it. So we didn't. :lol:
Probably a smart move. The ending (of the TV version) adds nothing to the story and basically undoes the entire story.
The End of Evangelion movie is worth seeing. But like I said, I didn't find closure at all. It is a bunch of superbly done action sequences and character development plus another bunch of totally bizarre stuff that I consider impossible to understand.
I think a big part of why they do the Rebuild movies, besides the obvious goal of milking the franchise, is to try a third time to get some closure. But it seems the final Rebuild movie is now in development hell, so we probably won't get that :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2016, 02:42:33 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 07, 2016, 06:10:49 PM
What are Angels? What are "Adam and Eve"?
Are you familiar with those outside the context of the show?
Yes. My old school is a Christian school. That's part of the problem actually. Angels, Adam and Eve as seen in the Evangelion universe is completely different from the usual Christian understanding :D
Quote from: Monoriu on May 07, 2016, 06:10:49 PM
I think my problem with Neon Genesis Evangelion isn't just because of the inconclusive ending (even though they did it to me twice, the TV version and the movie version). But also because so many things are left unexplained. What are Angels? What's an "impact"? What are "Adam and Eve"? Why are the Angels invading the Tokyo Fortress? Most shows don't provide 100% information and some things are left for the audience to imagine. But I think Neon Genesis Evangelion over did it.
The ending. It isn't just an "inconclusive" ending. As far as the TV version is concerned, the "ending" is a two episode slide show that is obviously a result of budget problems. They ran out of money. The disconnect with the rest of the show was also great. Imagine the final 30 minutes of LoTR being a slide show, undoing everything that happened in the first 2.5 movies, declaring that all the problems happened in Frodo's head and that he could solve all Middle Earth's problems if only he could imagine a better ending. I couldn't care less if you call it modernist, postmodernist, premodernist or Jaronist. That's cheap, lazy and spitting on the audience.
The End of Evangelion movie. That's far better in terms of production values. When I watched the second half of the movie, the only words that appeared in my head were "WTH am I watching?" I had no idea what was going on, why things happened, and what the characters were doing.
That's what I meant by abstract. Probably :D
Heh, I didn't realize the ending of Evangelion was due to budget problems; that explains a lot.
I agree that there is simply too much left unexplained in Evangelion for the viewer to make sense of it. There seems to be an enormous amount of background information that's missing.
It's been a long time since I've seen the series; but I took the ending to mean that they had reached something akin to the singularity. We see the perfect world that our protagonist imagines; presumably his father lives in one where his dead wife is still alive and something similar for everyone else. The series didn't build up to this conclusion, and even if it had it would still be problematic; it's too happy an ending.
That being said I did enjoy Evangelion; it had strong characters, mystery and giant robots. What more could you ask for? (well, besides an ending that made sense...)
It really helps in understanding Evangelion to have read the so-called "Red Cross Book" that was sold in Japanese theatres to viewers of "End of Evanglion". There should still be translations online, I believe.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 08, 2016, 01:46:53 PM
Heh, I didn't realize the ending of Evangelion was due to budget problems; that explains a lot.
If I recall what I've read correctly they pissed their sponsors off around episode 19 or 20 or so; episodes 21-24 suffered a distinct drop in animation quality and then basically, as stated, they ran out of money for episodes 25 and 26.
Gainax almost died financially before Evangelion was even made, despite producing such fine work as "Gunbuster". Then Evangelion nearly killed the company. Then Evangelion took off, the money rolled in, and Gainax committed tax fraud. Which again nearly killed the company...
Gainax's history is interesting for more than just the eponymous "Bounce". :)
Episodes 21-24 were revisited with improved animation and extra footage a few years ago; I believe the DVD copy of Evangelion I have on my shelf is this remastered/recreated version.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 08, 2016, 01:46:53 PMI agree that there is simply too much left unexplained in Evangelion for the viewer to make sense of it. There seems to be an enormous amount of background information that's missing.
It's been a long time since I've seen the series; but I took the ending to mean that they had reached something akin to the singularity. We see the perfect world that our protagonist imagines; presumably his father lives in one where his dead wife is still alive and something similar for everyone else. The series didn't build up to this conclusion, and even if it had it would still be problematic; it's too happy an ending.
That being said I did enjoy Evangelion; it had strong characters, mystery and giant robots. What more could you ask for? (well, besides an ending that made sense...)
First time I saw the TV ending I thought "everybody died"; the second time I watched it I thought that "everybody lived" (or had the chance to, anyway); the third time I watched it I wasn't sure which interpretation was correct.
I must admit I enjoyed the TV series ending more than the movie, though; I found "End of Evangelion"'s first part a tad brutal in places for my tastes, and didn't think the philosophising in the second part was as effective as the TV series' finale.
And then there's the final scene of the movie... :mad:
Quote from: Agelastus on May 08, 2016, 03:15:14 PM
And then there's the final scene of the movie... :mad:
I read somewhere that the director asked Shinji's voice actress to choke the other actress in real life for maximum effect :D
I hadn't thought this thread could get worse. Clearly I lacked imagination. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2016, 01:57:51 AM
I hadn't thought this thread could get worse. Clearly I lacked imagination. :blush:
I think I now have a slightly better idea of what postmodernism is. Prior to this thread I had no idea. Now I know that postmodernism is like the most awful aspects of Neon Genesis Evangelion :contract:
So you've learned nothing real then. :P
Quote from: Monoriu on May 09, 2016, 02:16:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2016, 01:57:51 AM
I hadn't thought this thread could get worse. Clearly I lacked imagination. :blush:
I think I now have a slightly better idea of what postmodernism is. Prior to this thread I had no idea. Now I know that postmodernism is like the most awful aspects of Neon Genesis Evangelion :contract:
You went to a Canadian university and didn't learn what postmodernism is? :yeahright:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2016, 04:34:17 AM
You went to a Canadian university and didn't learn what postmodernism is? :yeahright:
Huh? I went to study accounting and finance. Why should business courses teach postmodernism? :unsure:
Imagine postmodern accounting :D
Very easy. Just think of some creative accounting, for tax evasion purposes or for electoral campaigns. :P
Quote from: Archy on May 09, 2016, 05:39:13 AM
Imagine postmodern accounting :D
Thx but no thx, belgian surrealist accounting is bad enough :p
Quote from: Archy on May 09, 2016, 05:39:13 AM
Imagine postmodern accounting :D
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/enron/usafstw43003sind.pdf
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 09:11:19 AM
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/enron/usafstw43003sind.pdf
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2016, 09:21:32 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2016, 09:11:47 AM
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.
John Oliver just did a story on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 09:11:19 AM
Quote from: Archy on May 09, 2016, 05:39:13 AM
Imagine postmodern accounting :D
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/enron/usafstw43003sind.pdf
That was modern accounting. Post modern is navigating all the rules that were put in place to prevent any type of shenanigans like Enron, most of which have no connection to anything done at Enron.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
Art is always ideological, the "problem" is that postmodernism has made us acutely aware of it. Producing and receiving art without an ideological intent or interpretation is becoming increasingly hard. Mistrust of ideology and challenging of such ideology has become an ideology in itself, in a way. And yeah, that's not good.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, but it has been a good ride. Postmodernism challenged lots of stuff that needed challenging.
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
On the contrary. I think Marty is a very moral human being You are the one who doesn't understand him.
Quote from: Siege on May 13, 2016, 04:48:04 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
All of them? Post-modernist mistrust of grand narratives and ideologies has unshackled a lot of the arts and freed them from conventional forms and content. In film it has been very enabling, from weird hyper-subjective South Korean dramas to Mad Max Fury Road. Loads of my favorite writers (Nabokov, Eco, Vonnegut, etc...) are post-modern too. Post-modern music can be a bit too precious though :P
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Ideology seems to dominate art to a huge degree these days. Nice to hear though.
Art is always ideological, the "problem" is that postmodernism has made us acutely aware of it. Producing and receiving art without an ideological intent or interpretation is becoming increasingly hard. Mistrust of ideology and challenging of such ideology has become an ideology in itself, in a way. And yeah, that's not good.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, but it has been a good ride. Postmodernism challenged lots of stuff that needed challenging.
The problem, I think, is that it produced such cynicism that we have people like Marti who have no moral compass at all.
On the contrary. I think Marty is a very moral human being You are the one who doesn't understand him.
Thank you, Siege. :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2016, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2016, 09:21:32 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2016, 09:11:47 AM
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.
John Oliver just did a story on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
That was good
Carbon Fibre Masculinity
This article examines material economies of carbon fibre as a prosthetic form of masculinity. The paper advances three main arguments. Firstly, carbon fibre can be a site in which disability is overcome, an act of overcoming that is affected through masculinized technology. Secondly, carbon fibre can be a homosocial surface; that is, carbon fibre becomes both a surface extension of the self and a third-party mediator in homosocial relationships, a surface that facilitates intimacy between men in ways that devalue femininity in both male and female bodies. Carbon fibre surfaces are material extensions of subjectivity, and carbon fibre surfaces are vectors of the cultural economies of masculine competition. Thirdly, the article gives an account of Oscar Pistorius as an example of the masculinization of carbon fibre, and the associated binding of a psychic attitude of misogyny and power to a form of violent and competitive masculine subjectivity. The paper unpacks the affects, economies and surfaces of "carbon fibre masculinity" and discusses Pistorius' use of carbon fibre, homosociality and misogyny as forms of protest masculinity through which he unconsciously attempted to recuperate his gendered identity from emasculating discourses of disability.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273793754_CARBON_FIBRE_MASCULINITY [accessed May 14, 2016].
How many people might be allowed today if we used a more feminine polymer for prosthetic.
At least the Sokal affair was a real hoax that seriously called into question the editorial standards of "postmodern" academic journals. And it took place in 1996. :yawn:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 14, 2016, 10:30:50 PM
At least the Sokal affair was a real hoax that seriously called into question the editorial standards of "postmodern" academic journals. And it took place in 1996. :yawn:
Yeah I remember that. It brought up a lot of issues that were never addressed or resolved so here we are.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2016, 04:55:32 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 14, 2016, 10:30:50 PM
At least the Sokal affair was a real hoax that seriously called into question the editorial standards of "postmodern" academic journals. And it took place in 1996. :yawn:
Yeah I remember that. It brought up a lot of issues that were never addressed or resolved so here we are.
I agree. Someone should finally determine whether gravity is a social construct or not.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 14, 2016, 10:30:50 PM
At least the Sokal affair was a real hoax that seriously called into question the editorial standards of "postmodern" academic journals. And it took place in 1996. :yawn:
Pfft...The Sidd Finch affair beat that by 10 years earlier.
Quote from: Drakken on May 14, 2016, 12:41:46 PM
Carbon Fibre Masculinity
Yes, very masculine.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache1.asset-cache.net%2Fgc%2F475261258-marlou-van-rhijn-of-netherlands-and-her-gettyimages.jpg%3Fv%3D1%26amp%3Bc%3DIWSAsset%26amp%3Bk%3D2%26amp%3Bd%3DGkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QWn3apWR5Zm1rTLgMe6AmRIQ4oFMdybledxepRhSXbtzfNnvsWuspvkb1UuApUxWRA%253D%253D&hash=2dcf1b59de64ac8832887196590f3333a4c92829)
I thought we were past the stage of considering everything that's long and hard a phallic symbol? That's the academic equivalent of 12-year old penis jokes.
So what's the two-legged girl doing in that crowd? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 17, 2016, 09:26:42 AM
So what's the two-legged girl doing in that crowd? :hmm:
Not all disabilities are visible? Maybe she has a very poor sense of direction.
Quote from: celedhring on May 17, 2016, 09:21:14 AM
That's the academic equivalent of 12-year old penis jokes.
:hmm: Is joking about penises of preteens that popular? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2016, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 17, 2016, 09:21:14 AM
That's the academic equivalent of 12-year old penis jokes.
:hmm: Is joking about penises of preteens that popular? :huh:
No, but preteens joking about penises are. The wording is a bit confusing, I admit. :P
Quote from: Maladict on May 17, 2016, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 17, 2016, 09:26:42 AM
So what's the two-legged girl doing in that crowd? :hmm:
Not all disabilities are visible? Maybe she has a very poor sense of direction.
Cyborgs are disabled now?
one real, one cyborg leg seems uncomfortable for running
Can't wait for lunch time, when I can crack open Derrida's Archive Fever and do a few pages of pleasure reading. :showoff:
Quote from: Martinus
I agree. Someone should finally determine whether gravity is a social construct or not.
That's the standard, lazy rebuttal, much like "social construct" can be a lazy, cheap form of sociology. That wasn't really Sokal's own cheap point anyway. Who, amongst constructivists, would truly believe that one who step off a cliff would not fall and die? The point is not whether or not gravity is a social construct, for it can very much be shown to be one: e.g., a ton of people can "believe" in gravity without having the slightest idea of the mathematical underpinnings of the theory (thereby giving gravity as a concept a social existence that goes well beyond its scientific definition) or, the manner in which scientists came to formalize the theory in the past and in the present is very much rooted in specific cultural forms (could we not imagine a theory of gravity that used other forms of conceptualizations stemming from other mathematical traditions?), etc. If you really want to attack "social construction" forms, you want to question either its breadth (i.e., what *isn't* socially constructed? - which makes such statement banal) or the capacity of certain social constructions to resist much longer than others, and in turn provide foundations for other, solid constructions.
Formatting is a social construct.
Quote(could we not imagine a theory of gravity that used other forms of conceptualizations stemming from other mathematical traditions?)
I'm not sure what other mathematical traditions you are thinking of. The mathematical formulation of General Relativity isn't dependent on a particular language. There are alternatives to General Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity), but any that are worth mentioning (apart from historical interest) should match the observed data at least as well as GR.
Quote from: frunk on May 17, 2016, 11:32:28 PM
Quote(could we not imagine a theory of gravity that used other forms of conceptualizations stemming from other mathematical traditions?)
I'm not sure what other mathematical traditions you are thinking of. The mathematical formulation of General Relativity isn't dependent on a particular language. There are alternatives to General Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity), but any that are worth mentioning (apart from historical interest) should match the observed data at least as well as GR.
We just use a different mathematical grammar... you know, the one where 3+4=5. Math is just a tradition, after all.
The point of it was that gravity exists as a mathematical/physics proof, one that is used in the sciences - it also exists without the mathematics in the minds of people, and that mental map is very likely quite different from the formal scientific one. One is the universal symbolic language of numbers, the other is the cultural bound symbols of human language.
I am not sure why the concept of a cultural construct seems so alien to some folks. The imperfections of human language, the need to communicate in metaphors and understood symbols, and the traditions of group dynamics should impact how the universal facts are filtered through the lens of human existence...
The overwhelming problem is that people who go on about social constructs are often retards who practice postmodernism. If ever there was taint this is it.
Quote from: The Brain on May 18, 2016, 09:10:16 AM
The overwhelming problem is that people who go on about social constructs are often retards who practice postmodernism. If ever there was taint this is it.
Right
Tribe A no like Tribe B
That's a summary of the thread in a nutshell.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 18, 2016, 09:33:47 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 18, 2016, 09:10:16 AM
The overwhelming problem is that people who go on about social constructs are often retards who practice postmodernism. If ever there was taint this is it.
Right
Tribe A no like Tribe B
That's a summary of the thread in a nutshell.
Elaborate.
Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2016, 07:44:07 AM
The point of it was that gravity exists as a mathematical/physics proof, one that is used in the sciences - it also exists without the mathematics in the minds of people, and that mental map is very likely quite different from the formal scientific one. One is the universal symbolic language of numbers, the other is the cultural bound symbols of human language.
For the vast majority of situations people encounter the mathematical and common sense definition of gravity is very close. Things fall toward the earth at a given acceleration. In fact there is evidence that the human brain is hard-wired to anticipate falling. Once we move beyond the earth that intuition fails, but I question the importance of culturally significant expectations about gravity that vary from the reality for situations that the culture hardly ever encounters.
Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2016, 07:44:07 AM
I am not sure why the concept of a cultural construct seems so alien to some folks. The imperfections of human language, the need to communicate in metaphors and understood symbols, and the traditions of group dynamics should impact how the universal facts are filtered through the lens of human existence...
It's not a question of how alien it is, it's a question of how important it is for interpreting universal facts. The extent to which people munge the universal facts in favor of their cultural construct is the extent to which that culture is going to do a face plant at some critical point.
I think there's also quite a bit of misunderstanding on why Sokal perpetrated the hoax. I wasn't to take down post modernism, it was to point out that much of the supposed scholarly material being published had little or no peer review. Any article that sounded vaguely right or quoted the right people could show up in print. Anybody familiar with physics or mathematics would recognize the paper as complete gibberish.
Quote from: frunk on May 18, 2016, 09:46:59 AM
I think there's also quite a bit of misunderstanding on why Sokal perpetrated the hoax. I wasn't to take down post modernism, it was to point out that much of the supposed scholarly material being published had little or no peer review. Any article that sounded vaguely right or quoted the right people could show up in print.
A problem by no means confined to "postmodern" journals or that particular academic tribe.
Quote from: frunk on May 18, 2016, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2016, 07:44:07 AM
The point of it was that gravity exists as a mathematical/physics proof, one that is used in the sciences - it also exists without the mathematics in the minds of people, and that mental map is very likely quite different from the formal scientific one. One is the universal symbolic language of numbers, the other is the cultural bound symbols of human language.
For the vast majority of situations people encounter the mathematical and common sense definition of gravity is very close. Things fall toward the earth at a given acceleration. In fact there is evidence that the human brain is hard-wired to anticipate falling. Once we move beyond the earth that intuition fails, but I question the importance of culturally significant expectations about gravity that vary from the reality for situations that the culture hardly ever encounters.
Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2016, 07:44:07 AM
I am not sure why the concept of a cultural construct seems so alien to some folks. The imperfections of human language, the need to communicate in metaphors and understood symbols, and the traditions of group dynamics should impact how the universal facts are filtered through the lens of human existence...
It's not a question of how alien it is, it's a question of how important it is for interpreting universal facts. The extent to which people munge the universal facts in favor of their cultural construct is the extent to which that culture is going to do a face plant at some critical point.
I think there's also quite a bit of misunderstanding on why Sokal perpetrated the hoax. I wasn't to take down post modernism, it was to point out that much of the supposed scholarly material being published had little or no peer review. Any article that sounded vaguely right or quoted the right people could show up in print. Anybody familiar with physics or mathematics would recognize the paper as complete gibberish.
I'm not so sure that is totally true, given that Sokal was co-author of a book entitled "Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense
It wasn't to take down "postmodernism", but the abusive, charlatan-y application of "postmodern" concepts to the realm of science.
Quote from: frunk on May 18, 2016, 09:46:59 AM
For the vast majority of situations people encounter the mathematical and common sense definition of gravity is very close. Things fall toward the earth at a given acceleration. In fact there is evidence that the human brain is hard-wired to anticipate falling. Once we move beyond the earth that intuition fails, but I question the importance of culturally significant expectations about gravity that vary from the reality for situations that the culture hardly ever encounters.
Ah but there have been many cultural and false experience based notions of gravity - objects falling at different speeds, notions of attractions, and similar things. While many of these have undergone change due to the discovery and continued refinement of the theory of gravity, the fact that the natural explanations were not the same before show how human culture does impact things that even seem hard-wired. Even today, the further one is from science, the more such outdated notions are likely to be held as true. There are two narratives here, and to an anthropologist both need to be examined rather than one dismissed. To an anthropologist, the humans are bio-cultural beings with feedback from both happening all the time.
Quote from: frunk on May 18, 2016, 09:46:59 AM
It's not a question of how alien it is, it's a question of how important it is for interpreting universal facts. The extent to which people munge the universal facts in favor of their cultural construct is the extent to which that culture is going to do a face plant at some critical point.
I think there's also quite a bit of misunderstanding on why Sokal perpetrated the hoax. I wasn't to take down post modernism, it was to point out that much of the supposed scholarly material being published had little or no peer review. Any article that sounded vaguely right or quoted the right people could show up in print. Anybody familiar with physics or mathematics would recognize the paper as complete gibberish.
Culture does face plants all the time. Myths (to an anthropologist this is a "fundamentally true story") are constantly changing due to the basic fact that culture changes - it is an amalgam of the past, narratives, and lived experiences. Culture gives humans the tools to make a sense of the world, but culture is not some monolithic thing. It is a living part of the social experience of groups of people.
I might have been unclear. The notions of cultural constructs predates postmodern ideas by decades. Despite being tossed off because of a perceived connection, the basic idea that culture provides a lens to make sense of the complexities of the world has been part and parcel of anthropological thought for more than a century. Post modernism is merely a subset of this, desiring to push that thought (in my mind often far too aggressively) in the face of concrete theories of perception and existence.
Postmodern thought has become a self-perpetuating misuse of culture theory - in part it is a symptom of the need to publish and find some special niche in which to academically live. In part it is the natural conclusion to the initial ideas of postmodernism that we as humans are indeed influenced by the culture we live in - in ways that need to me shown explicitly in order to study that culture. Of course, like many good ideas, this often goes too far (see "in part" number 1).
Tossing off the idea of a cultural construct simply because it is used by postmodern scholars seems the sort of facile argument that does not seek to understand what is argued and instead relies on knee-jerk reactions that miss any point.
Is postmodernism overused and often worthless? Yes.
Is postmodernism devoid of content and totally worthless? No.
The devil is in the details, and understanding these details is important to realizing that, like many things, the problem is far more nuanced than people give it credit for being.
I surrender.
Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2016, 07:26:13 PM
Postmodern thought has become a self-perpetuating misuse of culture theory - in part it is a symptom of the need to publish and find some special niche in which to academically live.
And this is aspect of the Sokal hoax that Sokal himself didn't really get. Steroidally enhanced publish or perish pressures corrupt all disciplines. Postmodern literature is particularly exposed because a reasonably intelligent layperson can recognize the shoddier work as gibberish. But the problem extends beyond that. Witness e.g. the debates over "mathiness" in economics. Econ papers that contain the veneer of model specification and statistically technique may look superficially rigorous but are empty or flawed in content. Postmodernism is a soft target but the stakes are low: Congress, the Executive, the Courts, and the Fed rarely make policy based on the reported results of a postmodern theory paper. But papers in the harder social sciences can and do have that kind of impact. Concern over shoddy academics should focus there IMO.
Can you give an example or fifteen of shoddy papers that have impacted policy Joan?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2016, 08:03:56 PM
Can you give an example or fifteen of shoddy papers that have impacted policy Joan?
Anything written by any economist. :lol:
Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2016, 07:26:13 PM
The devil is in the details, and understanding these details is important to realizing that, like many things, the problem is far more nuanced than people give it credit for being.
I agree, and I'm quoting just this bit cause I hate huge blocks of copy/paste. I remember in college I had to read several papers that tried to po-mo their way through a topic as an easy way to raise the word count without saying anything. OTOH I did have a lit class that did a good job of covering the non-retarded uses of it though.
Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2016, 07:26:13 PM
Postmodern thought has become a self-perpetuating misuse of culture theory - in part it is a symptom of the need to publish and find some special niche in which to academically live.
God, yes. :bleeding: This how I end up reading information science papers about "information seeking behavior as demonstrated in
The Big Lebowski," which have the potential of being interesting, but are just rote garbage instead -- not that that particular paper even invoked postmodern thought in any meaningful way.
Then I guess you wouldn't be interested in my piece, Fidel Castro: Bogart in a Blocked Cap...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2016, 08:03:56 PM
Can you give an example or fifteen of shoddy papers that have impacted policy Joan?
Jude Winniski's paper in 1978 setting forth Laffer curve; picked up and adopted by Reagan's team to give us "voodoo economics" and the 1980s deficits.
I hate to single out the Reinhart-Rogoff debt paper, because I greatly respect both economists and they usually do good work. However, that particular paper was not their best work and unfortunately incorporated data compilation errors. It was used and cited as a basis for the pro-austerity side during the sequester debacle.
Milton Friedman's unfortunate k% monetary growth rule is another example; the Thatcher government plunged the UK into recession by trying to follow it before giving up and righting course.
It's true however for the most part the shoddy papers are done by lower rep economists without a clear direct impact on policy. But of crappy work does get recycled by the more dubious thinks tanks out there for policy positions - the Winniski piece was in that vein.
Oh and then there is the Alesina Ardagna paper on "expansionary austerity" that was debuked by the IMF.
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:11:25 AM
Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.
Postmodern architecture needs to be burned to the ground and the earth salted.
Agreed on the rest.
We're way past post-modernism now anyway.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2016, 11:51:31 AM
I hate to single out the Reinhart-Rogoff debt paper, because I greatly respect both economists and they usually do good work. However, that particular paper was not their best work and unfortunately incorporated data compilation errors. It was used and cited as a basis for the pro-austerity side during the sequester debacle.
Even though that paper itself suggested no policy.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 24, 2016, 05:37:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2016, 11:51:31 AM
I hate to single out the Reinhart-Rogoff debt paper, because I greatly respect both economists and they usually do good work. However, that particular paper was not their best work and unfortunately incorporated data compilation errors. It was used and cited as a basis for the pro-austerity side during the sequester debacle.
Even though that paper itself suggested no policy.
Correct, I still stand by my characterization.
Did the Wanninski paper specify the point on the Laffer curve the US was pre-Reagan? There's nothing wrong with the basic logic of the Laffer curve.
I had never heard of the Reinhart-Rogoff paper until Jake linked it here to further the argument that austerity wasn't needed.
Did the Thatcher recession kill inflation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2016, 05:43:38 PM
I had never heard of the Reinhart-Rogoff paper until Jake linked it here to further the argument that austerity wasn't needed.
The product itself was just a big data dump. Yes, lots of people later used that data to try to justify stupid policy, but that can hardly be the fault of the data. Maybe Joan would rather have that data go unpublished, but when he says its not good work, it's pretty much just a reaction to the subsequent ill usage of it. There isn't really any value judgement to be made about a work that is simply a recitation of facts.
Seems if I see the thread title that postmodernism is a lot like immigrants or Manga. :unsure:
Well something destroyed my brain, so I might was well blame post-modelism/airfix glue. :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2016, 05:25:44 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:11:25 AM
Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.
Postmodern architecture needs to be burned to the ground and the earth salted.
Agreed on the rest.
We're way past post-modernism now anyway.
:blink: :w00t: :w00t:
Sheilbh! :hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2016, 05:43:38 PM
Did the Wanninski paper specify the point on the Laffer curve the US was pre-Reagan? There's nothing wrong with the basic logic of the Laffer curve.
The article itself said the point would vary substantial based on public willingness to be taxed, based on a series of anecdotes without any empirical analysis or grounding. The text stated that it would not necessarily be 50% but the accompanying prominently displayed graphic very clearly showed a inflection point at the halfway point between 0 and 100%. It was basically an attempt to say things that literally could be justifiable or at least not falsified, all while giving the impression that the present tax regime was well beyond the curve and thus a free lunch was available. Which is exactly how it was used in the public arena to unfortunate effect.
QuoteI had never heard of the Reinhart-Rogoff paper until Jake linked it here to further the argument that austerity wasn't needed.
It was a big deal in macroecon world at the time.
QuoteDid the Thatcher recession kill inflation?
The immediate impact of the adoption of the Friedman rule was that inflation went up. The problem is that the monetary authorities can't actually control money supply in the way required under a k% rule (this isn't a keynsian critique BTW but another application of the Lucas critique). And Thatcher couldn't - in late 79 the M3 target was growing to fast, and government reacted by sharply reducing the base. It failed: M3 growth continued and even accelerated and inflation along with it. The government then abandoned the strict monetary supply target (rhetorically it remained but the start point kept being recalibrated.). By 1981, M3 growth and inflation began to decline in response to this more flexible approach.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 24, 2016, 07:42:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2016, 05:43:38 PM
I had never heard of the Reinhart-Rogoff paper until Jake linked it here to further the argument that austerity wasn't needed.
Maybe Joan would rather have that data go unpublished, but when he says its not good work, it's pretty much just a reaction to the subsequent ill usage of it.
Also to the fact that there were significant errors in the data that required correction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 25, 2016, 10:46:08 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2016, 05:43:38 PM
Did the Wanninski paper specify the point on the Laffer curve the US was pre-Reagan? There's nothing wrong with the basic logic of the Laffer curve.
The article itself said the point would vary substantial based on public willingness to be taxed, based on a series of anecdotes without any empirical analysis or grounding. The text stated that it would not necessarily be 50% but the accompanying prominently displayed graphic very clearly showed a inflection point at the halfway point between 0 and 100%. It was basically an attempt to say things that literally could be justifiable or at least not falsified, all while giving the impression that the present tax regime was well beyond the curve and thus a free lunch was available. Which is exactly how it was used in the public arena to unfortunate effect.
QuoteI had never heard of the Reinhart-Rogoff paper until Jake linked it here to further the argument that austerity wasn't needed.
It was a big deal in macroecon world at the time.
QuoteDid the Thatcher recession kill inflation?
The immediate impact of the adoption of the Friedman rule was that inflation went up. The problem is that the monetary authorities can't actually control money supply in the way required under a k% rule (this isn't a keynsian critique BTW but another application of the Lucas critique). And Thatcher couldn't - in late 79 the M3 target was growing to fast, and government reacted by sharply reducing the base. It failed: M3 growth continued and even accelerated and inflation along with it. The government then abandoned the strict monetary supply target (rhetorically it remained but the start point kept being recalibrated.). By 1981, M3 growth and inflation began to decline in response to this more flexible approach.
As a teenager I lived through this, many people at the time thought it silly and the experiment showed itself to be wrong-headed; talking of which she was heading for election defeat and was only saved by the Falklands.
Some of the subsequently right of centre myths that grew up are partly underpinned by an implied economic triumph in the early 80s, that there never existed. That had to wait for the Lawson years.
Friedman himself was called to testify before the Commons and concluded that "only a modest reduction in output and employment will be a side effect of reducing inflation to single figures by 1982." It's important to keep in mind that the monetarist view at the time was to deny an inflation-unemployment tradeoff and thus its was not a matter of taking the Volkerite view that the pain of high unemployment over the short run was worth enduring to re-set inflationary expectations. Also that unlike in the US, unemployment in the UK didn't start to subside until 1986 and even by the late 80s was still well above the pre-Thatcher levels. So separate and apart from the k-percent rule fiasco, the overall policy never really fulfilled its objectives.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 25, 2016, 11:41:24 AM
Friedman himself was called to testify before the Commons and concluded that "only a modest reduction in output and employment will be a side effect of reducing inflation to single figures by 1982." It's important to keep in mind that the monetarist view at the time was to deny an inflation-unemployment tradeoff and thus its was not a matter of taking the Volkerite view that the pain of high unemployment over the short run was worth enduring to re-set inflationary expectations. Also that unlike in the US, unemployment in the UK didn't start to subside until 1986 and even by the late 80s was still well above the pre-Thatcher levels. So separate and apart from the k-percent rule fiasco, the overall policy never really fulfilled its objectives.
Indeed, but you'd have a hard time persuading some of the younger myth-carriers that it wasn't a time of milk, honey and sunlit uplands.
It's very impressive that the British electorate was discussing the BoE's misunderstanding of the relationship between base money and M3.
Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2016, 08:08:44 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2016, 05:25:44 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 05, 2016, 10:11:25 AM
Postmodernism has been great for the arts. I'm fine with it.
Postmodern architecture needs to be burned to the ground and the earth salted.
Agreed on the rest.
We're way past post-modernism now anyway.
:blink: :w00t: :w00t:
Sheilbh! :hug:
:w00t: :hug: