Customer Reviews

A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science

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

 

 

A few months ago, I gave this book a mere three stars. Since then, I've used arguments made in the book several times. There are, alas, many people out there, especially among "Left" activists, who really do believe that, for example, we "Westerners" are all unrepentant bigots, that we have done nothing for the rest of the world except pursue our racist and imperialistic tendencies, and on and on. We do live in some pretty anti-scientific times, and that opens the door for New Age fairy tales especially among the better educated, those, again, of a social inclination who can't understand the "hard sciences," so we blame them for all our shortcomings.

I'd like to give the book five stars even if it might help sell just one. But, as I'm not a "hard scientist" myself, I can't claim to understand everything in the book, and I'll have to limit it to four.

Please, read it, though, and don't be surprised if it opens your eyes to the "arguments" people are using which are swiftly refuted in the book. At least acquaint yourself with the arguments, and use them to confront the Sandra Hardings and their ilk who really haven't a clue what they're talking about.

This book is a collection of essays, and as is usual in such an anthology, the quality of the writing and of the arguments is variable. However, the editor did a terrific job of selecting writers who understand their topics, are not too terribly polemical, and write well enough to articulate their viewpoints.

The book ranges over a variety of responses to the post-modernist attack on science. I found the book quite informative on the content of the anti-science arguments, and while I have not read all of them, the ones I have read are reported fairly in this book. Then they are demolished.

Ini a similar way, I am only competent to judge about half of the science that is presented in the book, but again, what I do know independently is described accurately and articulately in this volume. This book shows that it is possible to write coherently about science and about social issues at the same time. I found the book useful in my attempt to understand the anti-science attacks more clearly than I had been able to do on my own, and I enjoyed the elegant, spirited rebuttals. Read this book, and then think for yourself. You should enjoy the process, no matter which side of the argument you end up on.

Noretta Koertge deserves the highest praise for assembling this group of essays. Anyone feeling the "postmodernist" assault on literature or philosophy has deteriorated will learn that science remains besieged by the cult of "cultural relativism". Each author provides a counterstrike against selected issues the "pomos" have launched to discredit science and/or scientists. In brief, postmodern attacks on science are uniformly devoid of understanding how science works. The critics of science distort history, fabricate or selectively edit texts and create meaningless issues. The collection illuminates these practices, exposing a wealth of poor scholarship and specious reasoning.

The writing quality in these selections is uniformly good, although some topics may prove difficult for readers unfamiliar with the material. "Superstring" theory, for example, is perhaps the most arcane topic in physics, but Norman Levitt underscores its importance in a finely developed essay on the future of science. Difficult subjects may cause some readers to avoid delving into this collection as being too remote. Never fear - this anthology has urgent value for you. To best understand why, you should read this series starting near the back. Koertge's essay on the impact of postmodernism on education is more than a little frightening. Koertge labels the application of "pomo" on education as "Civilian Casualties", amply demonstrating why this book should receive wide readership. She clearly demonstrates how far ideology attempts, and to some extent succeeds, in distorting the teaching of many fields such as mathematics.

While the essays cover a wide spectrum of topics, a recurring theme is the impact of "feminist" writers. Feminist attacks on science hinge on the dominant role men have played in science in the past. Instead of simply calling for more women to enter research fields, feminist ideologues blitz the entire scientific programme. Koertge and the others here demonstrate that science and mathematics teaching is being politicised. "Feminist science", whatever that is, aims to revise fundamentally how science is done. These essays confirm that ambition is misleading and destructive. Yet, as the collection clearly shows, this objective has permeated North American education and media. "Ethnoscience", a derivative of the feminist ideology and purporting to supplant empirical science methods, is in ascendancy here and elsewhere. Koertge and her colleagues examine and repudiate the underlying concepts of this movement. A telling essay by Meera Nanda shows how postmodernist ideology has invaded the Third World in fomenting bad science in the name of ultra-nationalism and against a perceived "neo-colonialism" from the West. Proponents of "Islamic Science" have openly adopted Western feminist writers in their tactics.

This book is a campaign document, but shouldn't be faulted for that. It is, after all, responding to a crusade eroding three centuries of effort by dedicated researchers and thinkers. Science is fundamental to our daily living, something its transparency leads us to forget. These authors restore the respect science deserves. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

I have a theory: That those of us with a social science inclination are intimidated by the specialized expertise required of the "hard" sciences. Consequently, we try to rival it with incomprehensible jargon, and findings with no evidentiary basis, of our own. We have, of course, our causes, racism, sexism, this-ism, that-ism. And, because we see hard scientists as our adversaries--because we don't understand what they're saying or how they reached their conclusions (and maybe because we envy them)--we accuse them of these sins.

This fine book is based on Alan Sokal's parody published by an allegedly scholarly social journal. Unfortunately for the journal's editors, they did not recognize it as a parody. In the parody, Sokal, a physicist, actually, heaven help us, quoted some of the post-modernists' "findings," that, for example, various conclusions of quantum mechanics--again, far beyond the comprehension of us social scientists--are based on white, male biases, and other nonsense of that ilk. The essays in the book were written by Sokal and other scientists citing particular post-modernists' work, and their dubious conclusions. They're good in describing, for example, the preconceived notions and false assumptions of the post-modernists, and how some "renowned" post-modernists' conclusions are not what they would have found had they followed their own logic. The essays, while eloquent, were written more for those who can understand the math used in the documents that the post-modernists trash.

There is a real talent in being able to translate difficult hard science math and conclusions into lay (non-scientist) terms. It has been done, and there are good magazines ("Astronomy" and "Scientific American" come to mind) that provide examples of it. While the book tries to do this, it can be a little dry for those of us without that hard science/math background. Fortunately, being dry and incomprehensible are not the same thing, so I understood what the authors were saying. And their refutation of the post-modernist balderdash is a blessing.

As to the post-modernists, as a veteran "leftist," I hear their balderdash all the time. Because of it, I've argued for years that the left is its own worst enemy. The (easily refutable) deductions of sexism and the like contribute to the "identity politics" which has limited my fellow progressives to shouting to each other.

I hope someone with the talent to which I already referred can better compile, or summarize the findings illustrated in this volume, so that maybe, just maybe, we can start being rational.

An excellent collection of essays highlighting the absurdities and potential dangers of the recent fad for the rejection of rationality.

The arguments presented are clear and calm. There is no resort to ridicule, no matter how ridiculous the POMO examples are. The only counter criticisms of this collection seem to amount to "Boo Hoo, why are you picking on poor post-modernists". A bit rich when you really start to understand what the post-modernists have been doing to the pursuit of knowledge.

If Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" were made part of the high school curriculum, I do not think the POMO academics would have been able to fool so many for so long. They would have taken their righful place beside the conspiracy theorists, channellers, New Agers, and UFOlogists.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in clear and readable accounts illustrating the deceptive and flawed claims of some of the most popular Postmodernist academics.

This is a good collection of useful material. There is an opening section concentrating on Sokal's Hoax, with Sokal and others commenting on the affair. Gross and Levit, of Higher Superstition fame, log in with contributions that are well worth reading. There are essays addressing the Strong Programme, and discussions of Hobbes and the Airpump. Only three papers become very technical. A couple more are somewhat difficult. Meera Nanda's account of how radical science critique is playing out in the third world is excellent and chilling. The postmodernists have strengthened the hand of repressive regimes who reject science as western rationalism, and then set out to fashion an Islamic science or a Hindu arithmetic, etc. Nanda has case studies to back her up. Koertge contributed a nice paper on scientific literacy. Levit's attack on the central dogmas of science studies is quite a punch. I enjoyed every minute of this collection and we need more essays like these.

Another wonderful book in the so-called "science wars" which demonstrates that many of the critics of science, rationality, objectivity, etc. don't have a leg to stand on intellectually.

This book which supposedly supports science and the scientific method often uses trivial rhetorical methods from the school yard. Long difficult quotations are taken out of context, not just that of the book's argument (which most clearly never bothered to try to understand) but out of the philosophical traditions and vocabularies. Such an idiotic method could render any field incomprehensible. This is neither rational nor fair, but it seems deeply contradictory in a book that claims it wishes to hold the standards of ethical academic work! However, that would be bad enough if -- in most cases -- the authors bothered to actual perform an analysis but no. In many cases, they just re- contextualizes a passage and then, with no pause, just jeer. I am horrified to see the praise for this sloppy and self satisfied hypocrisy. Sadly, hubris is the primary tool of this text.

Noretta Koertge is somewhat engaging but fails to make a strong case. Too many people seem to form knee-jerk opinions about these issues, which only leads to misunderstandings by both sides of the debate.

Ian Hacking's The Social construction of what? and Michael Ruse's Is Evolution a social construction?, treat the issues with honesty and fairness. Both these men have a firm background in science as well as philosophy.

So rather than snorting and sneering about the perceived attack on science and reason, readers would be well advised to look into the so called " science wars" a little more deeply.

Above all, postmodernism worships the god of the free market. Right wingers should be happy.