Customer Reviews

Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book, by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, both scientists (the former a biologist, the latter a mathematician), airs the grievances of science against the new post-modernist movement in the academia.

A movement that started as a deconstructionist method of literary criticism, postmodernism is now a way of thinking that is proposed by some proponents as an explanatory method for everything, including science. Briefly, post-modernism proposes that science is nothing more than a cultural construct, and has no more objective validity than any other form of knowledge. While natural sciences have remained untouched by this movement, it is taking over the social sciences, spurred over by the latter's failures at establishing its scientific basis as firmly as the former has done.

The subtitle of this book is "the academic left and its quarrels with science", and suitably, the first two chapters discuss politics. While politics should, ideally, be informed by science, it is a sad fact that science is also often informed by politics. The Academic Left demands that, rather than using science to inform the political process, the reverse should happen : feminist postmodernism demands "a complete overthrown of traditional gender categories", racial justice entails a society which prioritizes "black values" (in this case, Afrocentrism - the idea that Africa and black people are inherently superior), and environmental postmodernism "envisons a trancendence of the values of Western industrial society and the restoration of an imagined prelapsarian harmony to humanity's relations with nature".

The most used method to effect these views of the world is postmodernism, that is, the view that our ideological system (including science) is under the purview of cultural constructivism, that is, a product of the culture it exists in. It was first a product of literary criticism and history, places where no doubt it had much use, but is now widespread. Variants of this view posit that science is really a bourgeois construct, or the product of gender bias, or of a one-sided Western perspective, or of an impulse to objectify nature and alienate man from direct experience of nature.

Chapter 5 to 7 are worth the price of admission alone. Here, the authors examine the desperate attempts by "feminist" postmodernists (chapter 5), "environmentalist" postmodernists (chapter 6) and other movements - "anti-AIDS", animal rights, Afrocentrism (chapter 7). Note that I put their position in quotes : as I have mentioned earlier, what the postmodernist holders of these ideologies seek is not a reasoned position but brute social revolution thru obliteration of knowledge.

The most remarquable conclusion of these examinations is that, while the postmodernists in these disciplines claim that science is a social construct, they have very little actual evidence (the mere attempt to provide evidence is surprising, in the view that any ideology is a construct : we would expect total presuppositionalism here, but like any such people, they are forced to at least try).

For example, the best feminist attack against science we have are that : the little problems in math books (you know, the if-John-gives-half-his-money-to-Jill type of problems for children) are too white-male-oriented, and that the language used to describe sperm-ovula interactions are too aggressive. We have the idea that technological societies hate life more than others, and that to eat animals is born out of a desire to control.

The authors elegantly dispatch such nonsense and give us a bird's eye view of the biggest publications on the subject. The field is highly entertaining, and they do not hesitate to say what they think, even though science can be un-PC in many circumstances (such as when fighting Afrocentric myths). They state at the beginning that they intend to take no quarters, and they don't.

Science, despite its faults, is the crowning achievement of Western Enlightment. Books like "Higher Superstition" make us reflect on the intellectual threats to our future, and forces each of us to take a position. Despite some small ideological flaws, I give this book a hearty four out of five.

Gross and Levitt do a fine job of demolishing postmodernism in its various guises. The authors' impatience with, and honest surprise at, the academic left's ridiculously incompetent attacks on scientific objectivity is expressed throughout the book alongside some penetrating analyses of, and cogent arguments against, a string of postmodernistic theses.

The book has, however, one serious shortcoming: The authors' justified impatience with the academic left too often seems to make them forget - repeated assurances to the contrary notwithstanding - that a good many honest scholars within the humanities departments are just as hostile to postmodernism as any scientist. Eager to disclose the nonsense behind the empty rhetoric of the "scholars" of postmodernism, Gross and Levitt simultaneously discloses what seems to me to be a far from praiseworthy disdain of the humanities in general.

I am educated in the humanities, but my attitude is very much pro science. I was therefore frequently frustrated when I read "Higher Superstition", because I felt stabbed in the back by the authors' propensity to treat humanities scholars as of all of the same kind - e.g. as mathematically "illiterate". Gross and Levitt ought to know that even though humanities scholars rarely know anything about avant-garde mathematical and physical research this does not in itself betoken a lack of abilities, skill or intelligence on the part of those scholars. Reality has many different and fascinating aspects and no one can be an expert within every field of research. We pick the subject that interests us the most, and Gross and Levitt should accept that not all intellectuals find mathematics or quantum mechanics as interesting as e.g. history, anthropology or psychology.

Unfortunately, Gross and Levitt too often seem to equate the liberal arts with some kind of cosy game that can lead anywhere because of a lack of rules. This is grossly unfair - not to say ridiculous and demeaning - to scholars within the humanities departments. But to me it is regrettably an altogether too typical example of the intellectual arrogance that typifies many scientists' attitude to any kind of research that is not about the "exact" or "hard" sciences. Why shouldn't the humanities pretend to study an objective reality by way of stringent methodological rules and in the hope of providing sound, corroborated theories and true propositions? Why can't there be a good theory of e.g. the origins of World War I? Surely, Gross and Levitt wouldn't want to claim that there can be no true or false statements within the humanities? Were that the case, Gross and Levitt would be exactly as naïve and unjustified as the postmodernists who level the same charge against science. The fact that the humanities don't use particle accelerators or advanced mathematics does not in itself falsify their claim to objectivity. Surely the nature of the subject matter - and not the postulates of arrogant scientists - must decide questions of methodology. Objectivity is not just a matter of expensive laboratories and men in white coats.

An obvious example of the authors' condescending attitude towards the humanities is their musings on the question of which of the two - science or the humanities - is least dispensable to the human race. Apparently, Gross and Levitt think that whereas a world without science would be a terrible place, a world without the humanities would only be marginally (if at all) worse than the present one. I find the question in it self rather childish - science and the humanities are not competitors - but were I to play this game I'd point out that a scientifically advanced world without an adequate appreciation of the arts, literature, ethics etc. would be a world in which any Hitler or Stalin wannabe had every chance of blowing everything apart. Science can tell us how the world is - but only the humanities can tell us about how we ought to live our lives and treat each other. Gross and Levitt would do well to learn this lesson. Their claim that they themselves could teach a course in the humanities is hilarious and it made me shake my head in disbelief. I've been taught philosophy and history by teachers who have spent a lifetime studying these subjects. But of course, Gross and Levitt are not only wiser by far than anyone else when it comes to mathematics and physics. They also know everything worthwhile about subjects outside their area of expertise! A modicum of respect and humility - or just plain old modesty - would not be amiss.

This criticism aside, there ought to be no doubt about the high quality of the authors' writing and logic. This is an important and well written book; it should command the attention of the intelligent reader and prompt some serious considerations of basic questions in epistemology and philosophy of science. I can heartily recommend this book.

Despite the subtitle "The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science," the dangerous aspects of the misconceptions exposed and dissected in this book are due much more to irrationality than to politics. Fortunately the authors take pains to clear up a potential misunderstanding by pointing out that there does exist a generous complement of academics who are left-leaning, rational, and not inclined to quarrel with science.

Gross and Levitt perform a valuable service in three parts. They take the time and trouble to wade through the more obviously idiotic postmodern anti-science drivel, they refute it, and they remind us that the purveyors of it are firmly ensconced in the faculties of major universities.

The authors of "Higher Superstition" are academics themselves, and write elegantly in prose laced with vocabulary-stretching words like hermeneutics, conspective, auspicating, tatterdemalian and weltanschauung. While not a particularly easy read, the book makes its main point clearly and simply enough: the postmodern science-bashers are aiming their largely spurious complaints at subjects they secretly resent and barely comprehend. Science has produced edifying, useful, beneficial results with more regularity and less ambiguity than any other field of human endeavor. To claim otherwise is deeply dopey. If academia tolerates a clique where such claims resonate, something is seriously out of whack and we must thank Gross and Levitt for providing fair and frightening warning. Self-styled progressives who berate science with politically correct non sequiturs are no less goofy than the religious zealots they so pointedly disdain.

Gross and Levitt know their subject, and they present their case with wonderful lucidity and sophistication. Some may call it pedantic, but it taught me a few new words, and for that I am grateful.
However, there remains something troubling about this book. First of all, the author's views of politics are egregiously simplistic. As far as their concerned, there are only two political beliefs: left and right, the latter being populated mostly by their enemy the "creation scientist." Second, the book sends dangerously mixed messages. They call the academic left their "friends" even as they lambast them in a manner that would give Ayn Rand a lesson in polemics. Because of this, their critique is limited to myopic analyses of specific blunders (with a hasty appeal to their representativeness), while leaving untouched the mistaken postmodern premises that give rise to such blunders.
Last, and most importantly: Gross and Levitt come across as watchdogs patrolling their own profession. When they find a transgressor, they simply throw her over the fence into the humanities and social sciences, to run amok as she pleases. Granted, the sorry state of the humanities is not their problem; they are scientists. However, as scientists, they of all people should hold the virtues of objective inquiry in high regard. If the postmodern word-salad of relativism does not work for the natural sciences, why should it work in the humanities, which is every bit as concerned with understanding of reality?
I give the book four stars because these men are heroes for taking on the postmodern academy. I did not give them five stars because they do not go far enough. They pawn their misguided "friends" off onto their sister departments, and think that sufficient. But they will always come back. By refusing to strike the root, Gross and Levitt work against their intention.
Still, what is good in here is EXTREMELY good, and I recommend the book highly.

Academic fads have a startlingly brief lifespan: Last year's new thing is supplanted by this year's new thing, which promises to transgress all previous boundaries and explode the oppressive partiarchal paradigms that are crushing the unprivileged. Everything that lies under the vague umbrella of "postmodernism" is one of those this-year's-new-things. But most of those academic fads didn't really go away; that's why, even though it was published in 1998, this is an important and still-relevant book.

Gross and Levitt examine and systematically demolish a number of postmodernism's anti-science subspecies. In a way, this amounts to no more than swatting at a swarm of annoying academic insects; Gross and Levitt are genuine scientists, so, unlike the academic postmodernists, they are good at analyzing data and presenting logical arguments. And that's what they do, devastatingly and humorously. It seems unlikely that a densely footnoted and referenced academic study could be laugh-out-loud funny, but this book is.

However, there's something important here, too. That is that the academic postmodernists' attacks on science have a cumulative harmful effect of deflecting young people away from real science, confusing the scientifically illiterate public about scientific and technological principles and policies, and, most dangerously of all, creating the impression that science is just one of several possible "ways of knowing," all of which are equally valid.

No, they're not. The plain fact is that science works; it accurately describes physical reality. Diverting intellectual effort and research money to the study of alternative "ways of knowing" is wasteful and academically bankrupt.

Read this book. It's still relevant and important. And it's very, very funny.

I am not into forcing people to read books, but if I were, this book would be near the top of my "must-read" books. Gross/Levitt's in-depth analysis of several of the current trends in sociological writing about science and the lamentable rise of pseudoscience (e.g., Afrocentrism, Difference Feminism) hits the nail on the head. They demonstrate very convincingly the handshake between the radical right and the left when it comes to fighting rationalism. Their final example of "upmanship" (pp. 243f) - the relationship between the Sciences and the Humanitities - is essentially correct, and the level of scientific knowledge among students of sociology, contemporary linguistics, or political science is deplorable. In my opinion this is because the "hard" sciences are exactly that - hard (although *nothing* can be harder than reading sense into a postmodernistic text). And when it comes to the "power" of "deconstructing" things and "demonstrating that science is just a social construct", this is simply wishful thinking.

Once upon a time there was a movement known as "progressive." Its proponents were well-educated and called for things one would expect an educated person to advocate, like equality, freedom, and opportunity. Then something happened, and the academy begat the post-modernists who refute science, and propose "alternatives." The world will never be the same.

This is one of the best books in my rather extensive library! Needless to say when the authors first wrote it, they were called tools of the capitalist right wing, sexist/racist/homophobic and assorted cliches of dubious objectivity. Early in the text while acknowledging that they're not historians, they reviewed the history of the "left" in the U.S. It seems that many who considered themselves "left" in the 1960s and 1970s--particularly the extremists, who defended, for instance, that sample of politico-economic virtue, Mao's cultural revolution--found that there were few places they fit outside of academe. So that's where they ended up. I add that once there, these individuals found that their expertise was limited; in an era in which physics, math, engineering and the like have become extremely complex, the epitome of the "educated," those with expertise in social sciences found themselves overshadowed by what appeared to be their more intelligent, hard science counterparts. These poor, downtrodden academics then started making a name for themselves by using multi-syllable words to say nothing. And that's the backbone of this book.

I disagree with one critic who accused the authors of being too sardonic in their language. I think they could probably have been much moreso toward the nonsense they criticize. I mean, feminist algebra? As the authors indicate, the point of such a subject--without the allegedly political qualifier--is not to indicate the cultural role of men and women referred to in the text, but to get the right answer. If there is a "feminist medicine," remind me to never partake of its practitioners; I'd rather the physician know what she's talking about than to use ideological assumptions on my health.

Then there's AIDS. The extreme of the post-modernists insists that AIDS is a vast, white conspiracy genocidally eliminating black victims. That it is brought about by a virus on which much is known doesn't discourage this sort of dogma. But even the more "moderate" post-modernists seem to think that AIDS will be hampered if only society's patriarchal, authoritarian rhetoric is changed, like society's ostensible norms are more responsible for the disease than the virus!

The day before reading the chapter on the radical environmentalists, I was at a meeting in Washington, DC in which I commented that the persons there were remarkably "apocalyptic." The authors used exactly the same word toward the "radical environmentalists," referring to the very same periodical discussed at that meeting! And they confirm what I've noted for some years, that these movements are of the same zeal and evidentiary background--and moralist foundation--as fundamentalist preachers. They're religions!

The bottom line is that what the post-modernists criticize they know NOTHING about.

I think the authors were overall pretty level headed. They question some hyperbole, for example, of the environmental spokespersons, e.g., Sagan, and Schneider, but didn't condemn it. Yes, they state, such exaggeration can be the equivalent of crying wolf when the predictions don't come true. But the issues are, alas, important, so their having come to the public's attention may, at times, have made the hyperbole appropriate. And with respect to AIDS, the tendency of researchers was to warn that it is a disease that is bound to spread outside of the high-risk groups, gay men, intravenous drug users and those who need frequent transfusions. While the virus hasn't spread that far, I don't regret that they erred in the side of caution.

The book's concerns are real, and tangible! When the Afro-centrists claim that "white" science is what causes their demise, they develop an "alternative." But, as the authors say, after describing the make-up of this alternative, black students will be in an "intellectual ghetto" because of it. So much for fostering black equality.

One of the articles of faith of the post-modernists is relativism, one of the tenets of which is while we may all have different perspectives on the world, they are all equally valid. I remind the post-modernists that, if that's true, Hitler was abused and misunderstood and his elimination of the Jews and others was just another perspective, as valid as that of those of us who refute it.

Warning: it's not an easy read. That doesn't mean you need to be a hard scientist to understand it. I'm not in that category, but had no problem at all understanding the author's points. One need not have a degree in math to recognize the amusing shortcomings of "feminist algebra." But there is a lot there. Fortunately the authors' wit, comments they occasionally add on the obvious ignorance of their critics, make it hard to put down, and easy to take seriously.

The post-modernists endearment of the victim culture, that the traditional underdogs are the victims of EVERYTHING, whether it has victims or not, is something I would object to if I were of the underdog category. Am I not responsible for anything? Then, if I do accomplish something, should I perhaps not take credit for it? I dread that kids now in college will be subject to the stuff this book criticizes. And that's the reason I think every incoming freshman should read it! Perhaps the most sickening thing about the post-modernists is that they--and their student proteges--consider themselves "progressive." In reality, they're about as "progressive" as the right-wing zealots, especially of the religious realm, they claim to condemn.

"Higher Superstition" is a must read for anyone who has suffered through the lunatic whiney mamma's boys [of either gender]who pimp that French Marxist superstition called "deconstruction." Jacques Lacan surely must be chuckling to himself each night when he hears how many delicate, high-strung professors actually believe his deconstruction nonsense about Shakespeare --and now about science-- and about how many intense, immature, nervous graduate students waste perfectly good air and caffeine debating the finer points (as if there were any!)of his merde de cheval. "Higher Superstition" gives Lacan et al a long overdue, richly deserved kick in the behind as it reinforces what HC Andersen said about the Emperor's being naked.

This book raises several very interesting points about the current anti-scientific, anti-rational movement in some parts of academia and elsewhere.

The main point of the book is that, in order for one to dissect science, one must USE SCIENCE!

This singular truth is very often ignored by some science-illiterate in academia (and elsewhere) today as they try to foster their socio-political agendas.

The real danger (as the authors point out), is not in some social "science" faculty in (presumably) forward thinking schools fostering their antirational ideas upon students, but rather the overall harmful effect as these kinds of sloppy magical thinking permeate to the rest of society, and even become an acceptable norm (even more than now!).

Being educated used to mean something, whether one was educated in the arts or the sciences (for a time, they were one and the same).

But without the ability and the desire to examine the world in a logical, consistent (and dare we hope scientific) manner, "education" becomes worthless. If the sole job of the "liberal arts" faculty is to pass off opinion, heresay, conjecture and other forms of nonsense as the gospel truth, where does it lead? If one only teaches about the urgent need to fight for a particular political agenda, what is being done besides "brainwashing" the hapless student into becoming a soldier in some imagined war?

The authors present several pieces of advice to potential "social critics."

It is not enough to merely pass off cute metaphores and analogies in proving one's point - no matter how clever they are .

If one plans on examining some (perceived) critical problem (social, political economical, ecological etc..) also present POSSIBLE WORKABLE SOLUTIONS! Pointing fingers at "Da Man" and breast-beating of the injustice of it all - solves nothing.

It is NOT acceptable to create fictitious fables and coin them as historical facts.

The only drawback for the book i! s in its writing style. Perhaps readability of the book for the general (non academia) audience would be improved by a new edition without the excruciating snobbish highbrow tone. This important issue concerns everyone, not just academia, and definitely not just scientists.

Science WORKS, and does not depend on one's faith.

Triggering the most hilarious literary scandal in recent years, this book will be a major influence in determining how our society progresses. Science has been under severe assaults during the past generation. Much anti -science feeling arose as a reaction against the use of science and technology to support war. Later, science was accused of supporting racism and sexism. Now, as this book makes clear, a new wave of slander on science has arisen and is gaining strength. The origin of these assaults began with the wave of "postmodernist" writings among French philosophers and social commentators. The attitude of science being merely the tool of society instead of working aloof or apart from social issues leapt the Atlantic to take firm root among North American academics. This "academic left," having begun as a movement for social equality, has turned its wrath on science. Nearly every element of science, from relativity to biology, has come under the distorted scrutiny of humanities scholars. Alan Sokal's fictitious example in Social Text demonstrated just how contorted this outlook can be.

After an excellent presentation of "postmodernist" concepts, the authors address the anti-science critics declarations. The authors offer us a rogues' gallery of misguided "spokespersons" who bend language, misinterpret what science discloses and the methods it uses, and who fail to comprehend the very topics they purport to critique. They accept that much of science seems obscure and eludes quick or superficial comprehension. Why then, they query, do these critics insist either on denouncing its methods or adopt the findings in an attempt to restructure society? In Gross and Levitt's view, the critics see attacks on science as a means of attaining intellectual power and guiding society along a revised path. Since these critics see corruption at every level, they mean to "purify" society by tearing out any and all roots supporting it. That they have been effective at this slashing exercise in many areas is the reason this book was written.

Gross and Levitt show that those condemning science as "patriarchal," environmentally destructive or racist, are almost universally devoid of knowledge of the workings of science. These attackers seek to replace traditional science with new "ways of knowing." Gross and Levitt offer some real howlers as examples of this genre. From the frivolous "Newton's Principia is a rape manual" to the bizarre notion of a "feminist algebra," Gross and Levitt expose the fallacies of these "anti-patriarchal" constructs. Given the long term campaign by feminists to rebuke science, they show remarkable restraint in their assessment of this aspect of post-modernist techniques. The chapter "Auspiciating Gender" is but seven pages longer than the next longest one. Still, as they remind us, those adherents to such grotesque notions are now firmly established in academic positions and making education policies.

Throughout the book, the authors remind us that science is "a reality-driven enterprise." Science achieves its results by constant attention to methods and results. Whatever impact "culture" has on science, it isn't in the methodology. No reputable scientist assumes his theories will go unchallenged, especially as new data emerge. The cycles of checks and confirmations or refutations has kept science moving forward since the Enlightenment. Gross and Levitt urge readers to remember that without the methods and results of science, countless human achievements from the elimination of smallpox to the computers viewing this page would never have occurred. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "show me a cultural relativist in a jet aircraft at 35 000 feet, and I'll show you a hypocrite." What more can be said?