Problems of Social Constructivism and Postmodernism
BackJeffrey L. Kasser speaks about the vision of science and the possible role philosophers of science should play in assisting science.
I would have to go contrary to the fashionable trend of what many here on YouTube think and post this video.
We continue to see in our culture, the cynical and deviant caricature of science drawn by social constructivists and postmodernists with untenable "grand narrative" only they seem to exhibit. Yet they continue to exploit and distort scientific theories (string theory, quantum mechanics, many-worlds interpretation etc) to serve their needs because they know that science does have authority in making genuine worthy statements about nature. But at the same time to social constructivists and postmodernists, science is no more then yet another "narrative" or a genre of literature speaking nothing about the mind-independent external world. Kasser thinks this tendency to promote relativism stems from valuing other branches of studies and their epistemology (notably English departments in universities...).
Yes, of course, it is true that scientists are fallible and scientists cannot be totally passive about their narrative point. And yes, some scientist do crudely think that we can demarcate science and pseudoscience easily.
But I have to appeal to the success of science. I believe that scientific theories progressively are getting better. The standard that we judge that a theory is becoming better is would be some pragmatic virtues. Better theories will solve more problems, and the problems found by us should in some way reflect the genuine questions we have about the real world. Then it seems reasonable to suppose that scientific theories are becoming progressively better in describing the way the world is over time. Thus scientific realism.
"Jeffrey L. Kasser is a Teaching Assistant Professor of Philosophy at North Carolina State University. He received his B.A. from Rice University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor."
(info from teach12.com)
Channel: Education
Uploaded: April 22, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Author: ContraWagner
Length: 00:06:02
Rating: 4.71
Views: 3099
Tags: Science Philosophy of Social Constructivism Constructionism Postmodernism
Video Comments:
f33d4ward (December 4, 2008 at 2:08 am)
Can we measure everything? Is there anything we cannot measure? Can we be fully cognizant of that which we seek to examine?
xxPHOENIX80xx (July 22, 2008 at 7:28 am)
Very, very interesting.
LordImmolation (June 5, 2008 at 2:10 pm)
Ah the TTC - Philosophy of Science, huh? He really bashes social constructionist views in alot in the series. He raises some interesting points, however and he is very easy to listen to.
jannisarrie (May 22, 2008 at 12:26 am)
tendency to tolerate disagreement that leads to relativism is highh in continental tradition that concerns with meaning. It's a tradition that stemmed out from introvert, artistic n literary style of philosophising.
If i produce excatly the same poem like my friend does in poetry class then i'll be charged with plagiarism.But i can produce the same answer in mathematics.
So arts demand us to be unique. In that sense it's fine to celebrate diferrences.
If i produce excatly the same poem like my friend does in poetry class then i'll be charged with plagiarism.But i can produce the same answer in mathematics.
So arts demand us to be unique. In that sense it's fine to celebrate diferrences.
jannisarrie (May 21, 2008 at 11:59 pm)
Hey wagner...have u read D.C Phillip's Social Scientists' Bestiary. I think it's a good neo-popperian response to hermeneutcists n constructivists claims on science.
regalkidney (May 15, 2008 at 9:45 pm)
As for your pragmatic defense of science, this easily slips into relativism. Are the effects of science really beneficial for us, as you claim? Clearly, this is a question of value, and different cultures have different values. Perhaps modern scientific values have proven themselves to be more powerful than ancient Navajo values. But does that really make these values better? ...especially when we consider that scientific values have, for example, paved the way for global ecological disaster?
regalkidney (May 15, 2008 at 9:48 pm)
(by the way, this is in response to ContraWagner's written comments on the right)
ContraWagner (May 16, 2008 at 4:37 pm)
I am not defending science. I am defending scientific realism. The pragmatic virtues I haven't specified are used to judge which scientific theory is better.
regalkidney (May 15, 2008 at 9:35 pm)
It seems like you're trying to move from a pragmatic defense of science to scientific realism. To make this move, you'd probably need a premise like this one: "the theories and models which are most beneficial for us correspond more or less to the actual structure of reality." That sounds plausible enough, but what evidence do we really have for it? To check the claim, you would need an independent method of accessing reality in itself, which we simply don't have.
oweja (May 8, 2008 at 8:13 am)
"Science deserves our respect!" Absolutely. While I think science is still a relative infant, it is a sturdy young fellow. That doesn't really mean I think science is male. Yet, if deconstructive discourses help to identify new directions that questions about a subject can take, methodologies to collect the data, and analytical process can surely be designed. And if there are questions about the strength of all these part, then let them be asked and stronger designs be produced.