William G. Scott wrote:
In my case at least, it isn't a question of failing to take an interest,
but rather a complete sense of frustration when trying to communicate
with people who insist on speaking utter jibberish. The point of the
"postmodernism generator" website is to show just how mechanical,
arbitrary, and ultimately how vacuous this stuff really can be.
On a more serious level, we have the case of Sokal's "Social Text
Affair". Sokal is a physicist who published a paper in the prestigious
journal Social Text entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity".
The paper was a total spoof, but the editors and reviewers (none of
which were qualified to pass judgement on quantum gravity) decided it
was a great achievement and worthy of publication. Then when he
admitted the hoax, all hell broke loose. cf:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
Again, I'm afraid there is a problem here with the problematic
overloading of the term 'postmodern'.
I agree with everything you say concerning postmodern philosphy, the
Sokal affair, the postmodernism generator, and so on. However,
postmodernity as a description of the prevailing worldview in
contemporary western culture is a completely different kettle of fish
and requires *no* jargon to understand. None.
However, there may also be a pond-difference at play here. Since one of
the critiques of modernity which has driven postmodern relativism is the
critique of colonialism, and in Europe (and particularly the UK) we tend
to be aware of our role in some of the worse aspects of colonialism,
then it seems plausible that European culture is more influenced by
postmodern ideas than the US. A comparison of EU and US foreign policy
over the last two decades (non-interventionism being shaped by
relativism even in the face of genocide, versus interventionism shaped
by the moral certainty of absolutism) would tend to support this view.
If that is correct, then my advice to take postmodernity seriously (the
sociology, not the philosophy), may be less relevant to you than to my
European colleagues. However, I am not sufficiently in touch with the
breadth of US culture to say for sure.
I don't have time for a full exposition, but here's a couple of
illustrations of changes which are taking place which have direct impact
on science communication. In the UK at least, teaching strategies have
changed to reflect the fact that appeals-to-authority no longer carry
the weight they used to - school science involves more discovery based
learning. Similarly, TV science documentaries no longer attempt to
communicate facts, rather they tell stories, usually following the
intellectual journey of a scientist of scientists in reaching a discovery.
So, I agree with you, as scientists postmodern philosophy is useless to
us. However, understanding postmodern society (at least in the EU,
possibly in the US) can be extremely useful in communicating science
effectively.
Kevin
p.s. Creationism is a confounding issue here, because it is on the rise
in both the US and EU. However I think the sociological reasons for the
rise of young earth creationism (which is notably absent from the
Christian 'fundamentals' essays of the late 19thC from which the term
fundamentalism comes) are fundamentally different in the US and in Europe.
