Post-modernism: the philosophy of failure.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Since I haven't been on the site for a while to respond the to debate below and it was a side argument anyway, I decided to make a new thread on this:



Post-modernism is the philosophy of failure. It rejects the notion of progress and is anti-enlightenment: I believe postmodernism is pro-endarkenment.
:huh:

If you're not being sarcastic then i would say your view of post-modernism seems to be premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of what post-modernism actually is.


'Post-modernism is the philosophy of failure'

No idea what that means so i guess, yeah? It could be?



It rejects the notion of progress and is anti-enlightenment
Do you know why it rejects the notion of 'progress'? And why it criticises 'the enlightenment'?

(And please don't reply with some kind of cop-out like, 'because it is bourgeois' or something. I want to explore your understanding of post-modernism not your opinion of it.)

Let there be no mistake, these aren't political positions or principals, like 'anti-imperialism' - a post-modernist is not 'anti' what you conceive to be 'progress' but rather the narratives that people craft and label 'human progress'. That fundamental point (that europe and what they call 'human progress' isn't all that) is not even the invention of post-modernists, but has roots in the works of anti/post colonial marxists such as Fanon.


I believe postmodernism is pro-endarkenment.
Then clearly we are talking about two different things.

'Post-modernism' is essentially a set of critical tools, in an abstracted form it advocates nothing more than a critical understanding of reality; as a set of tools in the hands of a marxist it can advocate social revolution. As critical theories post-modernism and post-structuralism by their very nature attack institutions, power/authority - the ruling class and their ideas, social control (e.g. Foucault). The same tools of analysis can be applied in less plainly 'revolutionary' contexts, like literary criticism for example - but even there the impetus is nevertheless to undermine ruling class hegemony (as they are the class which most strongly asserts their view of the world).


Sure this is a huge generalization and sure many post-modern artists and thinkers have made great contributions, but like it's ancestor...
That would be first line of argument, yes.

Secondly, here you are conflating the 'postmodernism' of artists with that of history, linguistics, social theory etc. The 'postmodern' movement in art and architecture has nothing to do with what this thread is about.



but like it's ancestor, Romanticism, it comes from an anti-humanist, anti-change view of the world.

'Post-modernism' is not 'anti-humanist' by principal, it doesn't come from an 'anti-humanist' view of the world but as a critic. A critic of grand-narratives, truth claims, essentialised/ing views of the world, of society, humanity etc. It's as much 'anti-humanist' as it is 'anti-christianity' or anyone trying to claim some kind of divine truth about the world.

How is post-modernism 'anti-change'? :sleep:


Post-modernism is simply modernism's hangover and came out of the intellectual pessimism following the rise of Stalin, Hitler, and Nuclear weapons.
That's not an analysis it's an assasination attempt.


Post-marxism is not marxism, post-feminism is sexism, and tell workers in factories on the US Mexico border that they are post-industrial. Post-modernism is bunk.
Er... Post-marxism and post-feminism are not subtheories of 'post-modernism'... Post-structuralist feminism, and contemporary post-colonial feminism are more so - but no they're not 'sexist' (actually they have some pretty good stuff, and like many people living after the 1960s also critique the European 'Enlightenment' and liberal 'humanism').


I believe post-modernism is as much a barrier to progress and radical change as faith in divine providence or fate.
You sounds like Gertrude Himmelfarb (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Himmelfarb) ... or any number of bitter bourgeois historians, 'they're challenging our ideas!'


The Tate finnaly began saying that post-modernism in art is over and many intellectuals have come to the conclusion that post-modern thought no longer suits the world we live in. Good Riddence.
I'm not a post-modernist but i do enjoy how much it makes the ideologues of the world squirm :lol: It's like intellectual heresy! It also produces this beautiful scene, totally in-fitting with post-modernisms position intellectually - where you have the big old schools of human thought embodied by twitchy marxists, conservative historians and more - bloated but weathered - swiping wildly but comically at this little menance... and not one throw lands. Good critiques of post-modernism or post-structuralism come from people who actually understand it (usually this means post-structruralists critiquing post-structuralism), the alternative just plays right into the hands of the post-modernist critique itself.
__________________

|Black Rose (http://blackrosebooks.org/)|Radical Tradition (http://www.takver.com/history/indexoz.htm)|Jura (http://jura.org.au/)|


Neither Slave Nor Master

[Jimmie Higgins]

I once heard a post-modern professor say: "now we know that there is no alternative to bourgeois society (he meant this as middle class conformist yuppies, not capitalists) so post-modernism is about taking apart our society and playing with the pieces". This seems to me to be a retreat: there's no alternative to the way things are, so we can just mock and camp our oppressors instead of trying to replace them with ourselves.

This is why I think post-modernism is a philosophy based on failure and pessimism rather than trying to better understand the world and change it.

So, my understanding of post-modernism (funny since even post-modernists don't agree on a understanding of it or that there can really even be an understanding of post-modernism) is that it is essentially a rejection of the possibility of an overall understanding of the world - or at least skepticism about overall understanding of the world.

This philosophy came to dominate US academia after WWII when intellectuals were trying to grapple with things like the NAZIS, the holocaust, atomic bombs, the failure of the Russian Revolution to hold onto worker's power. I believe part of it's appeal to intellectuals at this time was it's explicit non-revolutionary character.

Post-modernism doesn't help us understand the world better because it rejects that any such understanding is possible. This might sound like fun while in the realm of ideas if ideas don't really matter - but post-modernism has never really taken off in fields where ideas do matter. Does anyone take post-modern medicine? Deconstructive surgery anyone? If this sounds good, then let me be the first to operate on you because I reject scientific exploration as a meta-narrative. Science and doctors were used by Hitler, so obviously all science is suspect (rather than the practitioners and their interests).

Post-modernists like to say things like everyone is an artist. Fine, but it's not true. If everyone had the same access to galleries, contacts, art school, money, and materials, then everyone can be an artist equally.


I'm not a post-modernist but i do enjoy how much it makes the ideologues of the world squirm http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif It's like intellectual heresy!Well it may be different in other countries, but in the US, Postmodernism is the dominant accepted philosophy. It is the ideology of every every English, philosophy, and sociology and art department in US universities. And yes, it is an ideology, despite its claims to be a non-ideology. If your wold-view is that there are no world-view, that is still a meta-narrative.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Postmodernism is inherently political. It's a move from enlightenment views on objectivity towards pessimism. Why? Well, the epistemological theories that establish our modern society have become necessarily self-perpetuating. You can't criticize science without using science. You can't criticize religion without using religion. You can't criticize free market economics without appealing to free market economics.

What always remains regardless of the depth of an epistemological theory, quite simply, is the inherent uncertainty in life. Although the rational man can theoretically persuade the scientist, the christian, and the economist, there is a clear distinction between the realistic and idealist choice, here.

What do you want to do, basically. You can criticize the fundamentalist of their respective school in a vain hope to convince them before their methodologies infringe upon your liberties, hopes, dreams, et cetera, or you can engage their pessimism. You can bring them down to your level of despair, a level of despair created from there system, and they can see the meaninglessness of life.

When we sufficiently reject what the world claims, we can see what the world is. If we reestablish our epistemological basis on some new foundations, we may necessarily create the same problems we hope to resolve. This is the inherent necessity of maintain a flexible criteria for truth.

Why are so many postmodernists communist? Simple. They see the world for what it is and what it should be. They are not blinded by the systematic bias of what "can" and "can't" be done according to mainstream academia. They act according to their hopes and dreams of the future.

The problem is postmodernism is it underwent a skepticism where it left itself with nothing, and it is unwilling to distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate views in our society as to create the means to move forward.

[Black Dagger]

Thanks for letting me know you had started this thread :confused::huh:



I once heard a post-modern professor say: "now we know that there is no alternative to bourgeois society (he meant this as middle class conformist yuppies, not capitalists) so post-modernism is about taking apart our society and playing with the pieces". This seems to me to be a retreat: there's no alternative to the way things are, so we can just mock and camp our oppressors instead of trying to replace them with ourselves.

I once knew a strawman, he said a lot of things. Unfortunately i didn't write them down.

Look, i'm happy to continue this discussion but considering you went to the trouble of re-posting a long quote from me as the basis for the topic would it not make more sense to focus on things that i have said? Clearly, using a ficitious quote from some unnamed 'post-modernist' (i can't say i really trust your judgement on that score) as a lead-in or justification for your argument on post-modernism is a bit... dodgey? I.E. I'm not really sure what that apparent 'quote' has to do with post-modernism, despite of course your assertion that a 'post-modernist' said it. It's not really a sound platform for a discussion.



This is why I think post-modernism is a philosophy based on failure and pessimism rather than trying to better understand the world and change it.

Because of what some professor said?

How is post-modernist history for example, based on failure and pessimism?

I dunno, i'm just not sure how i am expected to respond to plain assertions like this? I mean, the whole purpose of deconstruction is to understand things in a more nuanced way :huh:



funny since even post-modernists don't agree on a understanding of it or that there can really even be an understanding of post-modernism)

What are you talking about? There are plenty of books around that deal with understanding and articulating post-modernist approaches to history.



is that it is essentially a rejection of the possibility of an overall understanding of the world

Post-modernists reject/question the utility/accuracy of metanarratives, yes. But it really depends what you mean by 'an overall understanding of the world'.



- or at least skepticism about overall understanding of the world.

Depends. Post-modernist historians are also concerned with how 'understandings' are constituted, not just whether universalism is 'valid' or not.



This philosophy came to dominate US academia after WWII when intellectuals were trying to grapple with things like the NAZIS, the holocaust, atomic bombs, the failure of the Russian Revolution to hold onto worker's power.

It did? Personified by? Post-modernism in history (which is my area of knowledge) certainly does not conform to the chronology you outline here.



I believe part of it's appeal to intellectuals at this time was it's explicit non-revolutionary character.

This reads like speculation? What are you basing this on?



Post-modernism doesn't help us understand the world better because it rejects that any such understanding is possible.



This might sound like fun while in the realm of ideas if ideas don't really matter - but post-modernism has never really taken off in fields where ideas do matter. Does anyone take post-modern medicine? Deconstructive surgery anyone? If this sounds good, then let me be the first to operate on you because I reject scientific exploration as a meta-narrative. Science and doctors were used by Hitler, so obviously all science is suspect (rather than the practitioners and their interests).

This is just more absurd 'assasination-analysis' :huh:



Post-modernists like to say things like everyone is an artist.

They do?

Come on man, what exactly are you on about? You talk constantly in generalisations, clearly you have an axe to grind.



Fine, but it's not true.

You don't say!


If everyone had the same access to galleries, contacts, art school, money, and materials, then everyone can be an artist equally.

Sure, i suppose.



Well it may be different in other countries, but in the US, Postmodernism is the dominant accepted philosophy.

Er... what?


It is the ideology of every every English, philosophy, and sociology and art department in US universities.

I'll take your word for it i guess...



And yes, it is an ideology, despite its claims to be a non-ideology. If your wold-view is that there are no world-view, that is still a meta-narrative.

That doesn't make any sense, post-modernists are concerned with the construction of 'world-views' (e.g. what do these obscure?), not rejecting politics or subjectivity (on the contrary). In terms of history writing, this can take the form of Subaltern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaltern_(postcolonialism)) histories for example - which are designed to challenge conventional histories from concious political positions (post-colonialism).


---------


The problem is postmodernism is it underwent a skepticism where it left itself with nothing, and it is unwilling to distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate views in our society as to create the means to move forward.

I'm not sure if you're referring to specific individuals here or what, but i don't see that as a limitation inherent within post-modernist or post-structuralist critique. Disputing 'truth' claims does not prohibit an individual from assuming political positions. I think some of the misunderstanding of post-modernism stems from this sort of characterisation/caricature - basically viewing post-modernist views as some variant on nihilism.


-------

Both of you are using 'post-modernism' as a general term, but it's not clear to me what exactly you are referring to (i try to relate my views as closely as possible with the context i was introduced to post-modernist and post-structuralist criticisms, history). It's like those threads in the discrimination forum that rail against 'feminism' - which feminism? 'Post-modernism' is not a unified body of views. It's a term used to describe trends in different areas like history, sometimes as a short-hand for some specific criticisms of modernism, as a synonym for post-structuralism or simply a pejorative polemical tool (like in this thread).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes I have an axe to grind with post-modernism, it uses radical discourse but is ultimately idealist (language is more/just as important than material reality), elitist (privileges criticism and therefore the same academic settings it thrives in in the US) and is an impediment to united action (identity politics came out of a post-modern view that all opression comes from one group vs another rather than being tied to the greater economic and political system).

The claims I made about post-modernism's dominance in US academia are well known - even Wikipedia talks about it.

You are right, I have been very general and skipped from post-modern art to post-modern philosophy and so on. Part of the problem is that post-modernism is so varied that it's hard to talk about the big picture without being very general. Maybe you should outline why you think post-modernism is valuable for challenging capitalism and imperialism. I have laid out my perspective on it, all you have offered are attacks on they way I have put it and implied that my anecdotes are lies.

[Black Dagger]

The claims I made about post-modernism's dominance in US academia are well known - even Wikipedia talks about it.Well i guess that is enough then, an appeal to wikipedia is at least some kind of evidence i suppose.


You are right, I have been very general and skipped from post-modern art to post-modern philosophy and so on.Right, which only makes your unsubstantiated claims even less coherent. If you want to make a claim about some postmodernist viewpoint then you have to be specific, a reference to one of apparently a vast number of postmodernist academics would be a good starting point. Though obviously if you want to assert a more general trend more than one reference would be necessary.


Part of the problem is that post-modernism is so varied that it's hard to talk about the big picture without being very general.But this is a problem of your own making. Perhaps if you discarded this false notion that there is this thing called 'postmodernism' - a manifesto-ideology armed with a program of ideas that positions itself firmly across a number of fields - then maybe talking about this stuff wouldn't be so difficult. I mean, you haven't even differentiated between 'postmmodernism' as a critique of modernism - or modernist ideas - and the idea of 'postmodern' art. Instead, if you addressed the views of people called 'postmodernist', or who identify with, a 'postmodernist critique' in specific areas of knowledge, like history as i mentioned, then we can narrow the frames of reference and discuss specific claims. I.E. have a debate. Otherwise it's just this silly game of assertions.


Maybe you should outline why you think post-modernism is valuable for challenging capitalism and imperialism. I'm not sure where i made this claim? But regardless, i've already addressed the question of postmodernism's utility in the previous thread on this topic (i.e. where you lifted the OP). Bob the Builder asked a similar question, though in a much less adversarial manner.


I have laid out my perspective on it, all you have offered are attacks on they way I have put it and implied that my anecdotes are lies.What i have done is identified that your argument is essentially political rhetoric, characterised in your own words by generalisations, 'I have been very general'; amounting to little more than in your words, 'axe-grinding'. In short, a collection of unsubstantiated claims/attacks on or about something you have labelled 'postmodernism'. The only supporting evidence being a 'quote' from an unnamed 'postmodernist [self-identified or not it isn't clear] professor'.

I really don't need to say more than that?

I mean you started this thread with a post of mine - used without permission or notification of any kind (yet apparently you want to 'debate' huh?) - positioning it - i assume - as an example of 'postmodernism' (despite the fact that i don't identify as such) or possibly of postmodernisms 'failure'. In sum, 'look at this jackass and these stupid ideas!' Yet despite that, your first actual post in the thread was just a rehash of stuff that has already been discussed (the thread you sourced the OP from) - which you have already said before, again with not a single reference to a post-modernist author, and with absolutely no reference to the OP itself even! So what was the point of putting my quote up in there? You didn't even address it directly. I've no problem debating the failures of post-modernist ideas with anyone, but from the outset i don't think there has been even an iota of genuine desire for honest debate here.

So yeah, no thanks bro.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If postmodernism told us anything useful, then Alan Sokal wouldn't have pwned Social Text with his infamous paper (Google it, it's funny).

I love it when reality smacks philosophers in the face.

[Invariance]

And bogus physics papers have been submitted and accepted by peer-reviewed physics journals.

So I'm guessing physics tells us nothing useful? :confused:


I love it when reality smacks philosophers in the face. If anything, science has been 'smacked in the face with reality' far more often than philosophy - which is a good thing, since science aims, amongst other things, at giving an accurate account of reality.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Black Dagger,

Please do not feel that I am being antagonistic towards you, I am sorry I did not notify you when I quoted you, it was not meant to be antagonistic or a slight or whatever. My only intention is to be antagonistic (and yes, an "assassin") towards post-modernism because it has hurt rather than helped the fight against opression.

I am also sorry that I can not quote directly post-modern philosophers, just what I have heard academics talk about. Requiring me to reject post-modernism on the basis of what this or that post-modern thinker wrote is like saying I can't also be an atheist because I can not quote line and verse from the bible to prove my disbelief in its basic concepts. This is why I have been general, I reject the basic worldview of postmodernists.

So, where to start if we want to be specific. Ok, let's start with post-modernism in action (or inaction) in politics. In the US, the most prominent postmodern ideology in politics is identity politics. This view of oppression rejects the idea that racism and class rule are connected (too meta-narrative, or too economic determinist in their view). So opression in this view is not serving any one class rule and does not play a central function in contemporary society - instead, oppression is horizontal. In this view, a black man may be oppressed by a white man, but he may oppress white women in other circumstances or oppress black homosexuals. So on campuses this ideology has led to smaller and smaller groups that see the fight against oppression as a cultural battle rather than a political battle. It also causes groups to turn against other oppressed groups, so that Mecha, the largest latino organization on most US campuses won't work with Black student groups even if both groups are dealing with racism on campus. There are numerous examples of organizations of oppressed groups seeing each other as the enemy rather than the rulers of society but essentially the main problem is that if oppression comes from just having different groups together in society, there is no possibility for united struggles and so the status quo remains intact.

Post-modernism as a critique of modernism: this is where post-modernism is most valid,because there were many problems in modernist thought, but it throws the baby out with the bathwater. Put simply, is there are no meta-narratives, then there can not be socialism (why would rule by the working class be any better than rule by the capitalists?) no anarchism/communism (what good would having no state be if oppression comes from competing groups rather than capitalist class rule?).

[Jimmie Higgins]

And bogus physics papers have been submitted and accepted by peer-reviewed physics journals.

So I'm guessing physics tells us nothing useful? :confused:

If anything, science has been 'smacked in the face with reality' far more often than philosophy - which is a good thing, since science aims, amongst other things, at giving an accurate account of reality.

Science is often wrong, but when it is, it is possible to test and find out and move on. The implication of the hoax is that for post-modernism it doesn't matter if it's wrong or not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And bogus physics papers have been submitted and accepted by peer-reviewed physics journals.

So I'm guessing physics tells us nothing useful? :confused:

The important difference is that other scientists revealed the papers to be hoaxes. Hoax papers may be able to slip through peer review on occasion, but once published they cannot escape the scrutiny of the greater scientific community.


If anything, science has been 'smacked in the face with reality' far more often than philosophy - which is a good thing, since science aims, amongst other things, at giving an accurate account of reality.

The Sokal hoax was revealed by Sokal himself, if I remember correctly. In doing so, he also revealed postmodernism is more about confirming one's own biases than anything else.

[bricolage]

In regards to postmodernism, while a substantial amount of it of it is pretentious and counter-productive, I think certain aspects can be of use. For example here is a quote from Foucault in the 'Human Nature: Justice versus Power' debate with Chomsky, I think he makes some valid points about the necessity to identify power relations in all spheres of public life;


If one understands by democracy the effective exercise of power by a population which is neither divided nor hierarchically ordered in classes, it is quite clear that we are very far from democracy. It is only too clear that we are living under a regime of a dictatorship of class, of a power of class which imposes itself by violence, even when the instruments of this violence are institutional and constitutional; and to that degree, there isn't any question of democracy for us.
Well. When you asked me why I was interested in politics, I refused to answer because it seemed evident to me, but perhaps your question was: How am I interested in it?
And had you asked me that question, and in a certain sense I could say you have, I would say to you that I am much less advanced in my way; I go much less far than Mr. Chomsky. That is to say that I admit to not being able to define, nor for even stronger reasons to propose, an ideal social model for the functioning of our scientific or technological society.
On the other hand, one of the tasks that seems immediate and urgent to me, over and above anything else, is this: that we should indicate and show up, even where they are hidden, all the relationships of political power which actually control the social body and oppress or repress it.
What I want to say is this: it is the custom, at least in European society, to consider that power is localised in the hands of the government and that it is exercised through a certain number of particular institutions, such as the administration, the police, the army, and the apparatus of the state. One knows that all these institutions are made to elaborate and to transmit a certain number of decisions, in the name of the nation or of the state, to have them applied and to punish those who don't obey. But I believe that political power also exercises itself through the mediation of a certain number of institutions which look as if they have nothing in common with the political power, and as if they are independent of it, while they are not.
One knows this in relation to the family; and one knows that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class.
Institutions of knowledge, of foresight and care, such as medicine, also help to support the political power. It's also obvious, even to the point of scandal, in certain cases related to psychiatry.
It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them.
This critique and this fight seem essential to me for different reasons: firstly, because political power goes much deeper than one suspects; there are centres and invisible, little-known points of support; its true resistance, its true solidity is perhaps where one doesn't expect it. Probably it's insufficient to say that behind the governments, behind the apparatus of the State, there is the dominant class; one must locate the point of activity, the places and forms in which its domination is exercised. And because this domination is not simply the expression in political terms of economic exploitation, it is its instrument and, to a large extent, the condition which makes it possible; the suppression of the one is achieved through the exhaustive discernment of the other. Well, if one fails to recognise these points of support of class power, one risks allowing them to continue to exist; and to see this class power reconstitute itself even after an apparent revolutionary process.In any case I fully agree that much of postmodernism is un-penetrable and ultimately of little relevance to anyone outside of academic circles, but then again whoever said Marxist texts were easy to read....

And for something more lighthearted, search postmodernism generator on google.

[Red13]

It seems (at least in my opinion) that post-modernism is a form of "reality check" that is intended to knock the rose-colored glasses off of the blind eye and see past redundant self-defeating systems (example: personality cults and two-party systems) and discover personal failure.

However, in it's attempt to encourage people to "face reality", it more often causes them to believe that reality is unchangeable due to the reality of nature, and more commonly human nature.

So it seems logical to believe it anti-progressive because it argues with the principals of communism in the same vein as the capitalist "Human Nature" arguement.

However, if one were to look into the main idea concerning post modernism, it holds no notion of attacking progress (though some followers would gladly toss aside any movement as an inevitable failure or "Replacing one tyranny with another") but attcking, and more appropriately, criticising the preconditions of failure of progress.

So, like human nature itself, Postmodernism is Bi-Polar, and can produce new levels of self discovery\critical annalysis, or new levels of apathy and unneccesary cynicism. And, much like Communism itself, Postmodernism is not one solitary theory, but rather a collection of similar ideas.

Ideas that sometimes radically diverge and create a situation of self-defeat.

(Keep in mind that this is indeed coming from someone outside of academic circles, and please excuse my ramblings.)

[Invader Zim]

What are you talking about? There are plenty of books around that deal with understanding and articulating post-modernist approaches to history.


Have you read any of them? I recall a few years ago trying to read Keith Jenkins.... what a mistake that was.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


The important difference is that other scientists revealed the papers to be hoaxes. Hoax papers may be able to slip through peer review on occasion, but once published they cannot escape the scrutiny of the greater scientific community.

This is in general not the case. Many frauds have come to light as a result of the work of historians and sociologists of science, not scientists (who, in many cases tried to cover such 'errors' up) -- including those perpetrated by Ptolemy, Galileo, Newton, Dalton, Mendel, Eddington, Millikan...

And this is particularly true of more recent frauds (which involve the loss of jobs, grants and prestige, where plainly the institutions involved had powerful motives to sweep things under the carpet).

Those who doubt this can read the details here:

Broad, W., and Wade, N. (1982), Betrayers Of The Truth. Fraud And Deceit In The Halls Of Science (Simon & Schuster).

Crewdson, J. (2003), Science Fictions. A Scientific Mystery, A Massive Cover-Up, And The Dark Legacy Of Robert Gallo (Back Bay Books).

Grant, J. (2007), Corrupted Science. Fraud, Ideology And Politics In Science (Facts, Figures & Fun).

Judson, H. (2004), The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).

Kohn, A. (1986), False Prophets. Fraud And Error In Science And Medicine (Blackwell, 2nd ed.).

Newton, R. (1977), The Crimes Of Claudius Ptolemy (The John Hopkins University Press).

See also here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrication_(science)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Schon

[Invader Zim]

But that Rosa, of course ignores the issue that Nox is attempting to really highlight, and that is the merit of the peer-review system. Part of the beauty of the system is that theoretically (though admittedly not always in reality) both the source of the reviewed work, and the reviewer are anonymous meaning that work cannot pass the review system regardless of the threat of "loss of jobs, grants and prestige".

Obviously things don't work perfectly, most academic research is so esoteric that everyone who works in a given esoteric field will have read pretty much everything that has been published on the topic knows who is working on what. Thus if one person in 'x' field wrote an article and it was submitted for review the author could probably have a reasonable guess who it would be sent to and the referee's would likely have a firm idea who wrote the paper. You also get the situation where a paper can be so esoteric that nobody is really qualified to referee it, or that it uses terminology that requires considerable understanding to actually understand. The problem gets worse with books, because anybody can go to a publisher and get any old rubbish out in print. Even academic publishers are relatively lax.

But the fact remains that, while problematic, the peer-review system is a good thing. And as said bad work is usually picked up even if it does slip through the net. I doubt Alan Sokal could have pulled his stunt in a peer-reviewed journal.

PS. That said, I have just read the wiki page on the Bogdanov Affair, which I hadn't read about before, and see that something not worlds apart from Sokal's 'experiment' in peer-reviewed journals (I see the author of the page also noted the similarity between Sokal's article and those of the Bogdanov twins).

Also, this issue of malpractise is certainly not limited to the 'hard' sciences. The arts suffer just as much, a case and point being David Irving. Certainly by the 90s he was not given the time of day by historians, but it wasn't until Richard Evans and his team went through nearly every line that Irving had written that the full extent of Irving's lies were finally exposed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invader:


But that Rosa, of course ignores the issue that Nox is attempting to really highlight, and that is the merit of the peer-review system. Part of the beauty of the system is that theoretically (though admittedly not always in reality) both the source of the reviewed work, and the reviewer are anonymous meaning that work cannot pass the review system regardless of the threat of "loss of jobs, grants and prestige".

But, as the sources I quoted show, since the much vaunted 'peer review' system was introduced, the number of frauds covered up by the 'scientific community' has if anything increased. It also shows that scientists have always been at it, and that the 'peer review' system hasn't changed much.

It is also worth recalling that the 'peer review' system was introduced (specifically by the US government in the mid-20th century) so that capitalist firms could regulate research, distribute grants and monitor 'quality'; it has nothing to do with the 'scientific method'. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that it stifles innovation and increases the risk or cover-up and manipulation for financial gain.

http://www.gilbertling.org/lp11.htm

As one authority commented:


There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.

Another added:


The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

Quoted from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

This Wiki page also itemises other defects of the 'peer review' system.


I doubt Alan Sokal could have pulled his stunt in a peer-reviewed journal.

And yet, other stunts have been pulled on 'peer reviewed' journals, as the links I posted testify (as your PS indicates), and as the quotes above confirm.

Anyway, Sokal's alleged 'hoax' is not a straight-forward as many seem to believe. Check these Essays out, for example:

http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/


Also, this issue of malpractice is certainly not limited to the 'hard' sciences. The arts suffer just as much, a case and point being David Irving. Certainly by the 90s he was not given the time of day by historians, but it wasn't until Richard Evans and his team went through nearly every line that Irving had written that the full extent of Irving's lies were finally exposed.

I agree, but this is just another condemnation of the rotten system under which we live.

And it is worth pointing out that it was a historian, not a scientist, who exposed Irving, just as it is historians, sociologists and journalists who expose scientific fraud.

In fact, I am somewhat amazed that there are radicals out there who seem to think that class society, and particularly capitalism, wouldn't encourage systematic fraud in science, and the means with which to cover it up.

--------------------------

Incidentally, this should not be seen as an attack on science or on scientific truth. I am no fan of PoMo. What we need is more and better science. But that will only come about in a classless society, under genuine democratic control.

[Invader Zim]

But, as the sources I quoted show, since the much vaunted 'peer review' system was introduced, the number of frauds covered up by the 'scientific community' has if anything increased.

But that, it strikes me, is probably because of the rapid rise in the size of the acadamy than the flaws in the peer review system.

As the situation stands, for all the flaws both of us have indicated, the peer-review system is the best we have.

[Invariance]

Little time to spare, but I would like to comment on the peer-review system (needless to say, the former comments that theories are 'tested' and therefore abandoned if wrong (because all theories can easily be tested, right?!), demonstrates a total ignorance of the history of science, as well as its fundamental nature - but that is another thread and one which Rosa has already touched on). Having studied mathematics, economics and (briefly) physics the idea that peer-review 'stamps out errors' is laughable and very gullible. One 'trick' is to write an article for a journal, then add a minor error - that way you will have a dozen responses citing your error, and therefore citing your article, which means that when an academic organisation (or a business) does a search of your citability, 'lo and behold you have dozens and dozens of references - and all on the fact that you've deliberately made an error! Of course, it can back-fire, but if all you're after is a place in a top firm, no harm done. Not only that, but even to submit your article (likely to be rejected of course) you have to typically pay several hundred dollars. Sure its anonymous (as far as that can be) - but you're only anonymous to the reviewers (and they to you), not the editor, and the editor, of course, makes the final choice. This depends on the journal and the system they use, however. And totally forget it if you have a dissenting view - try submitting a critique of neoclassical theory in one of the top mainstream economic journals - one of the AEA journals or the QJE! You most well write an article in Chinese for all the good it will do, because you'll be speaking in totally different concepts. No, you will only have a realistic chance in one of the minor dissident journals. At best, peer-review ensures that...surprise, your peers agree with you. In other words, its an appeal to authority and the dominance of a paradigm, rather than something which is really about testing a theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invader:


But that, it strikes me, is probably because of the rapid rise in the size of the acadamy than the flaws in the peer review system.

Indeed, and the 'peer review' system seems not to have made much of a difference.


As the situation stands, for all the flaws both of us have indicated, the peer-review system is the best we have.

Not according to this scientist:


The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

Anyway, would you accept a cappie arguing as follows?


As the situation stands, for all the flaws both of us have indicated, the capitalist system is the best we have.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

To add to Vinnie's (Invariance's) point, Lee Smolin (in The Trouble With Physics) points out that there is an effective ban on anti-string theory research and publication at present:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics

Astrophysicist M Hawkins argues the same for anyone trying to publish/do research on alternative theories of the origin of the universe (in Hunting Down the Universe).

So, not only does the 'peer review' system stifle innovation, it encourages fraud.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's no need for "anti-string theory" research as string theory is a unproven hypothesis. The burden of evidence is on the string theorists.


So, not only does the 'peer review' system stifle innovation, it encourages fraud.

A common complaint by pseudoscientists and cranks that ignores the fact that science works. Peer review is just one test that scientific ideas undergo. Reality is the ultimate arbiter.

[Invader Zim]

Anyway, would you accept a cappie arguing as follows?

But that isn't what was said, and nor what this is about.


Not according to this scientist:Read again, the scientist at no point in the excerpt you provided said that the system should be replaced and nor did he offer an alternative. A further reading of the origional article that finding came from suggests that the author, the editor of the Lancet, that the problems creep in with over reliance and those problems should be countered by "by adequate provision of time and resources for independent assessment and, in the midst of controversies, publicly funded agencies providing comprehensive, reliable and prompt complementary information".

Of course quite how those independent agencies, who presumably must be outside the esoteric field being researched, can hope to provide worthwhile assessment is left unanswered.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


There's no need for "anti-string theory" research as string theory is a unproven hypothesis. The burden of evidence is on the string theorists.

Unfortunately, according to Smolin, there is only string research in fundamental physics. Read his first chapter.


A common complaint by pseudoscientists and cranks that ignores the fact that science works. Peer review is just one test that scientific ideas undergo. Reality is the ultimate arbiter.

Not according to the scientists I quoted.

And 'reality' (whatever that is) can't be an 'arbiter' since 'reality' makes no decisions.

Human beings are the arbiters here, and human beings are not without bias or class interest.

Moreover, incorrect science also 'works' (there are scores of examples). So, the fact that science allegedly 'works' is no guarantee of truth.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invader:


But that isn't what was said, and nor what this is about.

You said:


As the situation stands, for all the flaws both of us have indicated, the peer-review system is the best we have.

And you did so presumably to persuade me that this flawed system is the best we have. But, that is an unacceptable reason. To illustrate objection this I then asked you if you'd accept this from a cappie:


As the situation stands, for all the flaws both of us have indicated, the capitalist system is the best we have.

And I did so to counter your argument that we should accept the 'peer review' system even if it is flawed. But, if we reject capitalism because of its flaws, then you can hardly argue we should accept the 'peer review' system despite its flaws.


Read again, the scientist at no point in the excerpt you provided said that the system should be replaced and nor did he offer an alternative. A further reading of the origional article that finding came from suggests that the author, the editor of the Lancet, that the problems creep in with over reliance and those problems should be countered by "by adequate provision of time and resources for independent assessment and, in the midst of controversies, publicly funded agencies providing comprehensive, reliable and prompt complementary information".

Well, if you had a car that ran so badly, you'd scrap it.

And of course, as with reforming the capitalist system, we know it (i.e., reforming the 'peer review' system) wouldn't work -- and for reasons I gave earlier: there are too many careers that depend on the present flawed system, too much money riding on it (particularly in medical and pharmacological research), and too many reputations that rely on it (for example, in string theory).


Of course quite how those independent agencies, who presumably must be outside the esoteric field being researched, can hope to provide worthwhile assessment is left unanswered.

Precisely.

And which scientist is going to be told by a 'non-expert'?

Look at how emotional Noxion gets, for goodness sake!

[We already know that the credentials of anyone who disgrees with orthodoxy are called into question (they are called 'cranks; for example, the man who invented the theory of Continental Drift (Wegener) was called a crank right into the 1960s; so were Semmelweis and Koch) -- see the link on 'The Experimenters' Regress' below.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter's_regress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Koch

Orthodox science is conservative to a fault -- Noxion's attitude is the sad result.

[Invader Zim]

And you did so presumably to persuade me that this flawed system is the best we have. But, that is an unacceptable reason. To illustrate objection this I then asked you if you'd accept this from a cappie:

But that makes the assumption that capitalism is the best system and ignores the fact that Marxism proposes an alternative system that will work better. There has been no realistic proposed system to replace the peer-review system akin to Marxism to capitalism. Thus your analogy isn't analogous.


Well, if you had a car that ran so badly, you'd scrap it.Again, that analogy doesn't work. Because all the other 'cars' would have to be worse.



But, if we reject capitalism because of its flawsWe don't reject capitalism simply because it is flawed, but because not only is it flawed but a another better system is available to replace it.

Show me a viable, and better, alternative to the peer-review system.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invader:


But that makes the assumption that capitalism is the best system and ignores the fact that Marxism proposes an alternative system that will work better. There has been no realistic proposed system to replace the peer-review system akin to Marxism to capitalism. Thus your analogy isn't analogous.

When I posted this:


As the situation stands, for all the flaws both of us have indicated, the capitalist system is the best we have.

I specifically left out any comparison with other modes of production so that I could quote this imaginary cappie supporting his/her flawed system.

So, my analogy was in comparison to no other system, and would have been apt had no one ever heard of Marxism or socialism.

Anyway, there is an alternative to the present 'peer review' system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_research


Again, that analogy doesn't work. Because all the other 'cars' would have to be worse.

1) You'd still scrap it.

2) Public transport would be better than such a car.

3) And I did not follow your reason:


Because all the other 'cars' would have to be worse.

Why 'worse'? Why not 'better'?


We don't reject capitalism simply because it is flawed, but because not only is it flawed but a another better system is available to replace it.

It is the main reason.

And there are other systems of review, as I noted above.

[There could be others still, it we gave it some thought.]