I could curse the folks in the 1980s that muddied the waters about what postmodernism is and isn’t. It’s become a boogeyman and it’s a shame because the muddying of the waters makes critical thinking difficult and precisely creates a postmodern environment.
LikeHe criticized the scientific method. Popper was a pluralist. Feyerabend took Popper and continued that line of reasoning to its logical end, which was “too far” of course.Post modernism is old. It’s primarily from the 1940s.—
“falsificationism” which was quite shocking to the world of science for years, turned out to be simply untrue.
You can’t falsify a scientific theory. Science does not work that way and never has.
But Popper acts as an inspiration for other things, usually his critiques of other philosophers of science, as they’re always competing.
Feyerabend went too far with Popper’s pluralism.
Lakatos took Popper’s methods and improved upon them by adding a historiographical component to it which allows for comparison.
That’s not the latest slant. That’s how it is. They don’t use falsification although it’s been useful in other fields just as they almost never use replication. They’re more akin to ‘high ideals” than realities.
But I’ll not fight on that. Falsification as with replication is still a tool in a toolbox of attempting to determine SCIENCE from PSEUDO-SCIENCE: the demarcation problem – regardless of whether or not they’re actually used.
I think Massimo Pigliucci’s fight against pseudoscience is valuable here, for pseudoscience has successfully mimicked the “look and smell” of science to such a high level of polish and precision that parents aren’t vaccinating their kids, anti climate change “science” that has the look and smell of science and is even published that we need to continue adding tools to the tool box to fight against it.
Popper vs. Kuhn:
The Battle for Understanding How Science Works
Pigliucci makes a great observation:
Kuhn: PUZZLE SOLVING
Both are features of how science functions and adds this:
“both Popper and Kuhn missed the obvious solution: both functions are performed at the group level, i.e., by the ensemble of scientists working within a particular discipline. Some scientists are more inclined or apt to engage in criticism and others in puzzle solving.
Science works well precisely because there is a division of labor that facilitates the continuous interaction between the two functions”
People go to university for 4, maybe 8 years if they’re lucky, between the ages of 18-22. Maybe 18-26.
I didn’t. I ran out of money by 19.5 years old.
Then there’s the rest of life.
Who gets to go to college? Who gets a university education? Where do they go after they graduate? How many follow what they learned in college in their careers or wherever their lives go?
I worry about the people easily led by the politicians and the marketing departments and the religious leaders.
They never learned critical thinking of any kind. A bit of reading/writing/rithmatic. Just the basics. Not how to scrutinize or criticize anything.
They learn how to as people do: in life, social situations, parents, classmates, “school of hard knocks”. And entertainers on TV or youtube, or TV commercials, or movies…
and when they do criticize, it’s for some political movement where somebody they respect said YOU NEED TO CRITICIZE [this group] FOR [these reasons].