The Enemies of Reason

MoominPapa

Heres a handy table showing general the differences between modernism and postmodernism.
PM has its place, in the arts where a rejection of hierarchy leads to innovation and ensure things don't stagnate.
David Bowie/Eno have a song on Low "Always crashing in the same car" which came from a conversation they had where Eno said the great thing about art is you can try all this crazy sh1t, have a disaster but still walk away unharmed and without injuring anyone else and try again.
Imagine using this thinking in medicine or rocket science. According to Pm we should therefore its a load of cack

Scofflaw

MoominPapa wrote:

Heres a handy table showing general the differences between modernism and postmodernism.
PM has its place, in the arts where a rejection of hierarchy leads to innovation and ensure things don't stagnate.

To be fair, it has its place in the social sciences as well, because social 'realities' are constructed realities. It also has its uses in determinations of value (say in environmental resource management), because, again, value is a social/personal construct.

An example might be in determining how "bad" the pollution of a stream is. There are objective measure (freshwater pollution scale, concentration of pollutants), but none of those will tell you whether local communities find the pollution unacceptable, because that depends on their system of values.

Another example might be the Norwegian charity that determined the most efficient solution to local water storage in Tibet was small high dams in the mountains - which ignored the fact that local people believed the water would therefore be contaminated by angry spirits. The solution was the most technologically efficient, but ignored the 'cultural reality' of the actual users.

Similarly, the point about paradigm adoption amongst scientists is realistic. New paradigms do tend to take root in the face of opposition from vested interests (or 'tenured interests'), and the spread of innovation is a cultural phenomenon within science.

It can be useful, therefore, where science meets society - but trying to apply it to the sciences themselves is to assume that science is really just art by another name (and, indeed, post-modernism contains a more or less explicit statement of that position).

cordially,
Scofflaw

carl_

I always enjoyed these two articles on postmodernism:

Chomsky on postmodernism
&
Richard Dawkins' review of Intellectual Impostures

The Dawkins one has a few gems iirc.

Scofflaw

carl_ wrote:

I always enjoyed these two articles on postmodernism:

Chomsky on postmodernism
&
Richard Dawkins' review of Intellectual Impostures

The Dawkins one has a few gems iirc.

You can generate your own postmodernist essay here - the link given in Dawkins' piece is no longer live.

Note the similarities with 'Creation Science', which uses similar seasonings of out-of-place scientific terminology to make their lunacy seem 'Scientific'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

PM has it's place alright, in the trash can. How do postmodernists get academic positions in universities? What use could their pretentious waffle possibly serve?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so that's what postmodernism means?

can't wait to experience it in all it's glory in the philosophy department in a few weeks

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

PM has it's place alright, in the trash can. How do postmodernists get academic positions in universities? What use could their pretentious waffle possibly serve?

Well, the modernist perspective also has its drawbacks. Post-modernism grew, to some extent, out of the realisation that modernism too often is used to promote the conclusion that "there is one right way, and that it is our way".

Remember that modernism is, to some extent, a technology-based view of the world. Problems can be solved, if only you go about them the right way - and the problem with that belief is that you end up looking at every situation that generates unease as a problem to be solved, usually though the application of technology.

Not only that, but modernism does not contain any recognition that there are different ways of looking at things - there is the right way, and an infinite number of wrong ways. Again, this approach derives from science - one theory is a correct representation of reality, others simply aren't.

So modernism itself can be quite a pernicious social philosophy, as can most - consider Social Darwinism. "Scientific progress" as a banner to march under frequently is shorthand for westernisation of everything, usually to the benefit of the West. "One right way" has been frequently a synonym for totalitarianism.

Post-modernism is, in its most sympathetic form, the realisation that there is more than one way of looking at the world, more than one 'right way', and no 'one way' that suits everybody.

However, post-modernism is simply the reaction against modernism. It contains no positive theoretical content of its own, in the sense of some sort of framework one can actually apply to a problem. Possibly some practitioners are/were seriously seeking to find such an intellectual framework (in a paradigm that rejects such frameworks - so they are applying to post-modernism the modernist idea that there is always a single unifying framework).

Since the majority of people are actually modernists (most of us implicitly believe that things can be got 'right' once and for all), anyone who can do a sufficiently good impression of having found such a unifying framework will always find a sympathetic audience. Since there is no such thing, it's impossible to tell the merely plausible from the real.

In addition, we all appreciate that there's some truth in this. We all know that the other guy in a traffic accident is going to tell a different story from ours, and the witnesses yet another. We can all "deconstruct" ads - spot where the advertiser is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Most of us can spot the hidden "subtexts" in films - the glorification of war, or the Hollywood convention that 'bad girls' always die.

And the human mind searches endlessly for patterns, for the hidden codes, the key that unlocks the secret, so, again, we're suckers for people who claim to have done so - worse, we're suckers for believing that we've spotted it ourselves. Even University departments can get taken in by this kind of guff, because not only does it play to these features of the human mind, but because such departments need some kind of paradigm to hold them together.

Finally, two other things happened that helped post-modernism. The first is that we stepped off the edge of simple certainty in some of the more visible sciences - classical physics gave way to the fuzziness of quantum physics, genetic determinism is giving way to the realisation of a hugely complex reality of genetic, epigenetic and metagenetic heredity (there's even evidence of the transmission of acquired characteristics), chaos theory, fractals, etc etc. Not only that, but instead of 'worldwide' races to do something straightforward and comprehensible, like work out the structure of DNA, we have hundreds of splintered sub-disciplines, endlessly proliferating.

So science, which once looked monolithic and certain, looked instead as though it was just like the arts, with their endlessly proliferating cliques and evanescent 'movements' - and, assuming you didn't know anything whatsoever about science, but knew it produced usable output (and you didn't), you'd be that much more inclined to listen to someone who claimed that it was just art, and who, even more importantly, treated it as if it were art, where you can simply borrow and rework motifs from other work without any reason to understand their meaning - instead, you simply vest it with new meaning, and claim yours is just as important. Plus, borrowing from science gets you real kudos - both Creationists and post-modernists borrow from it constantly, and for much the same reason: to invest their snake-oil with the trappings of something that actually does work.

The second, and most important, coincidence, was that the radical movements of the 60's produced a generation of academics with a vested interest in counter-culture and left-wing politics, but who were simultaneously ready for the comfy chair and comfy lifestyle of academia. Those who no longer wanted to work with the real poor, or really to put their lives on the line by joining insurgencies - or, indeed, who never had wanted any such thing - but who still wanted to feel that they were 'part of the movement', needed to dress p comfortable subjects like history and art as "radical". The result is Art Schools full of middle-aged radicals who feel they are still doing their bit by insisting that someone who wants to paint pictures paints them in a "radical" and "politically meaningful" way. Same for history, literature, philosophy, and a variety of other disciplines where, frankly, it makes little difference, because no-one is betting their life on your output, and everything is just another point of view.

Finally, you'll notice that it's difficult even to talk about post-modernism without talking complete sh1te at great length.

obscurantistly,
Scofflaw

lookinforpicnic

just a bump to remind people that the second part is on tonight at 8.

GhostInTheRuins

Thanks actually, I completely forgot about it.

stereoroid

It's on now. We've just had some lady ask RD whether he'd asked any angel guides to watch over him... When he asks for more details, she compared these angel guides to varieties of tea: some are green, some decaf, etc...

If you miss it - no worries, it'll be on GooTube soon. I missed Part 1, but watched it this morning.

Ah, good - I was wondering if he'd tackle the abuse of the word "quantum", and he is, focusing on Deepak Chopra. Grrrrr... ARF! :mad:

Crucifix

stereoroid wrote:

It's on now. We've just had some lady ask RD whether he'd asked any angel guides to watch over him... When he asks for more details, she compare these angel guides to varieties of tea: some are green, some decaf, etc...

I thought that was exceptionally weird myself.

Seeing Dawkins snoring on tv was certainly an experience.

Fanny Cradock

I only saw the last 20 minutes of the show, and I must say that he did make some rather sweeping statements about alternative remedies whilst also eulogising modern medicine. From his brief summation, it would appear that all forms of alternative treatment are to be considered worthless (acceptance of them is a sort of two fingers to reason) and modern medicine is without flaw.

I expected a little more.

stereoroid

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I expected a little more.

Could have used more time, I think. It's worth pointing out that the "alternative" is not eternally condemned to the "outside": it can become mainstream, with proper testing.

A great example was the way the bark of the white willow tree was a folk remedy for pain and fever. When Bayer investigated, and did trials, the effect turned out to be real, and it was possible to extract and synthesise the active ingredient. We now call it Aspirin.

I think that's why he kept banging on about trials. It's not about the people, or the things they use, or the nonsense they come out with. It's about their willingness to have their claims tested.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak: I'm currently engaged in a trial for a new drug called FTY720, which is derived from a fungus, and is looking good as a treatment for multiple sclerosis.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote:

That was pretty light hearted stuff though, hardly a flame war.

And I don't think there's too many posters in here who don't like to have their views challenged. I would be leaning towards the Dawkins side of the argument but am open to challenge and quite happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on something. We'd learn nothing if it was all agreement.

Well he was quite one-eyed again last night. Typical snooty upper class academic, he undervalues the role stress plays in a huge amount of illnesses and the power of positive thinking. He is uncritical of the the poor social skills of many Doctors from main stream medincine, many of whom are more focussed on money grabbing.

Medicine is class driven both in this state and in the UK. It attracts aloof, allure people who seek prestige not people who are genuinely altrustic.
Why is it so difficult to become a GP in many western democracies?
Do you really need to have got about 580 points in your leaving to do what is essential an advanced science degree? Bear in mind when anything complicated comes along, the GP sends the patient to a specialist. Dito the dentist.

If anything alternative medicine is evidence of the endemic snootiness culture with mainstream medicine and it's failure to relate to the wider public.

Once again he fails to understands the human condition and chooses silly rhetoric talking about a "war" on reason.

Dades

I've moved your post, Tim. I know you've quoted a post in another thread but you're addressing Dawkins, right?

Anyhow...

Tim Robbins wrote:

Medicine is class driven both in this state and in the UK. It attracts aloof, allure people who seek prestige not people who are genuinely altrustic.

How many doctors do you actually know? The people in school with me who had their hearts set on medicine were certainly not how you describe them.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why is it so difficult to become a GP in many western democracies?

I would say the inflated levels of responsibility require it. You're not dealing with peoples finances here - you can kill people very easily by accident or by ommision.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

How many doctors do you actually know? The people in school with me who had their hearts set on medicine were certainly not how you describe them.

Several. But my best experience came from being long term sick a few years bad and ended seeing over 40 Doctors and about 4 alternative practioners. It's not a bad sample set for one person. There is a wide range of personalities granted, but the question really is where is the evidence that the medical establishments values empathy and social skills?
For example, do you do an interview to get into a medical school or do you come from a quasi upper class family and top school so that you can get such a high mark in your leavig cert?

I would say the inflated levels of responsibility require it. You're not dealing with peoples finances here - you can kill people very easily by accident or by ommision.

Well there is no way you should need 580 points or so to be a GP or 455 or so be an Engineer. You can kill people if you make a mess of a bridge as well.

robindch

TR wrote:

There is a wide range of personalities granted, but the question really is where is the evidence that the medical establishments values empathy and social skills?

You're forgetting that the alternative medicine crew can only trade on fuzzy warm feelings, and they're very good at that. Real medics, on the other hand, may have to tell you bad news and cut you open.

It's difficult to appear empathetic with a knife in one hand and a needle in the other.

For more on this topic, check out Brian Hughes talk on Saturday 8th of September here:

http://www.irishskeptics.net/?page_id=162

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well there is no way you should need 580 points or so to be a GP or 455 or so be an Engineer. You can kill people if you make a mess of a bridge as well.

Eh no. They don't build bridges using split second decisions after a 24hr shift.

If someone wants to employ empathy and social skills there's not much to stop anyone becoming a nurse?

MoominPapa

One thing that gets me is how does you average homeopath know that hes got one part brussels sprout extract (or whatever) to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
parts water? Who makes their equipment and how are they calibrated? What if they get it wrong? Would this help explain why it doesn't work?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

You're forgetting that the alternative medicine crew can only trade on fuzzy warm feelings, and they're very good at that. Real medics, on the other hand, may have to tell you bad news and cut you open.

I know that and I think you are missing a point.
Surely for ailments where fuzzy feelings have a medicinal, and cause and effect relationship, homoepathy, or placeopathy has a role.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Eh no. They don't build bridges using split second decisions after a 24hr shift.

If someone wants to employ empathy and social skills there's not much to stop anyone becoming a nurse?

GPs don't make split second decisions they refer on for anything major.
Using your logic we should increase the salary of an ambulance driver above a doctor as one who could argue they make more split second decision, whether to break another set of lights in a split second to save someone's life.
Your "24 hr" point is moot, in this debate. Surely that's another problem with the medical profession and nothing to with placebopathy / fuzzyfeelingsopathy?
Doctors should have empathy + scientific knowledge. You can't just limit the empathy to nurses to maintain an elite, class driven, ruling class, esoteric, snooty, aloof, allure, quasi-snobby, "we're so proud we've a doctor (€€€,€€€) in the family" profession.
Some of the best brains in the country end up using state sponsored education to become cosmetic surgeons? It's sick, we value silly superficial things like the size of people's lips over people's health.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Several. But my best experience came from being long term sick a few years bad and ended seeing over 40 Doctors and about 4 alternative practioners. It's not a bad sample set for one person. There is a wide range of personalities granted, but the question really is where is the evidence that the medical establishments values empathy and social skills?
For example, do you do an interview to get into a medical school or do you come from a quasi upper class family and top school so that you can get such a high mark in your leavig cert?

In the UK, you do an interview, and the marks you are required to get depend on how the interview goes. Someone who comes across as a good candidate for medicine could be made a substantially lower offer.

The system is part of the normal university application process in the UK. Ideally, it would be applied here, however hilarious an idea that may be.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well there is no way you should need 580 points or so to be a GP or 455 or so be an Engineer. You can kill people if you make a mess of a bridge as well.

It's demand-driven, rather than reflecting the demands of the course, or of the career.

I tend to agree with you about Irish doctors, though - it's a "profession" here, and a way of ensuring the prosperity of your children, rather than a vocation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

TR wrote:

I know that and I think you are missing a point. Surely for ailments where fuzzy feelings have a medicinal, and cause and effect relationship, homoepathy, or placeopathy has a role.

I'm not really missing the point -- it's a well-established fact that placebo is effective for many complaints and doctors do use it and do rely upon it. And I also think it's worth medical staff learning, or at least being aware of, some of the woo-woo techniques from medically-untrained "alternative" practitioners.

However, it's one thing to adopt useful placebo practices upon which the woo-woo industry relies, and quite another to presume that there's any truth to what they say.

Tim Robbins

It's demand-driven, rather than reflecting the demands of the course, or of the career.

I tend to agree with you about Irish doctors, though - it's a "profession" here, and a way of ensuring the prosperity of your children, rather than a vocation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If the number of places were increase, the points would come down. But Dr's would be more plentiful and make less money. The IMO, ICHA are well organised and strong lobby groups and don't like that sort of stuff happening.

As Machiavelli said, there is nothing order of the human affair than to initiate change. The reason for this is because those who will loose are certain of their lose and those who will be gain are uncertain of their gain.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

I'm not really missing the point -- it's a well-established fact that placebo is effective for many complaints and doctors do use it and do rely upon it.

And I also think it's worth medical staff learning, or at least being aware of, some of the woo-woo techniques from medically-untrained "alternative" practitioners.

I disagree with this. I think many Doctors over subscribe rather than use the placebo technique. Their business model is based on 8 minutes or so per patient to increase their profit. They are also influence by the pharmaceutical industry who provide them with nice free skiing holidays. I can't see them being prepared to spend some proper time with patients or use a woo-woo technique as you desribe it.

However, it's one thing to adopt useful placebo practices upon which the woo-woo industry relies, and quite another to presume that there's any truth to what they say.

Do you deny the truth of positive thinking?

lookinforpicnic

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do you deny the truth of positive thinking?

Do we need alternative therapies to fool us into being positive about ourselves then, is that what you are saying, why can't we realise the truth of the placebo effect and the benefit of feeling good, not getting run down, not getting depressed, and make alternative life choices...like getting some exercise, learning to relax, taking time out, that kinda of thing, instead of filling peoples minds with crap.

I don't believe that it is positive thinking that is having any effect, its more so the lack of stress that mumbo-jumbo crap could induce in person, there is evidence that stress-related hormones like cortisol don't have beneficial effects on the immune system (simply because alot of house keeping functions of the body, move down a gear when stressed to allow the fight or flight system to be in full effect).

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

If the number of places were increase, the points would come down.

Who's to say this new extra batch of doctors will be plumping your pillows and reading you bedside stories?

Personally I'd rather a doctor with a brain the size of a basketball then one with a heart like Mother Teresa's. I've been in hospital for surgery this year, and barely met my surgeon. But I don't care because he did a top job on me, and every other member of staff I dealt with was friendly and committed.

Tim Robbins

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Do we need alternative therapies to fool us into being positive about ourselves then, is that what you are saying,

No. It would be quite difficult to build a testable hypotheisis for that.
I am simply saying we are not all the same. Some fairy medicine might do wonders for some people.

why can't we realise the truth of the placebo effect and the benefit of feeling good, not getting run down, not getting depressed, and make alternative life choices...like getting some exercise, learning to relax, taking time out, that kinda of thing, instead of filling peoples minds with crap.

Well then everyone you know to stop watching the premiership.

I don't believe that it is positive thinking that is having any effect, its more so the lack of stress that mumbo-jumbo crap could induce in person, there is evidence that stress-related hormones like cortisol don't have beneficial effects on the immune system (simply because alot of house keeping functions of the body, move down a gear when stressed to allow the fight or flight system to be in full effect).

Positive thinking is a lack of stress.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

No. It would be quite difficult to build a testable hypotheisis for that.

Not at all. After all, the placebo effect has been well tested. A standard double-blind test would do, with people offered a placebo purporting to be an alternative therapy or conventional medicine.

Since the patient themselves mediates the placebo effect, I imagine different people will react more strongly to one than the other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Who's to say this new extra batch of doctors will be plumping your pillows and reading you bedside stories?

It's a priori, if the points and salaries came down, the probability of people actually wanting to be a doctor for altruistic or vocation reasons go up.

Personally I'd rather a doctor with a brain the size of a basketball then one with a heart like Mother Teresa's. I've been in hospital for surgery this year, and barely met my surgeon. But I don't care because he did a top job on me, and every other member of staff I dealt with was friendly and committed.

Great. But I think you are naive if you think Doctors in general have high social skills and empathy skills. There's a quasi ruling class culture in society:

Go to a private rugby school
=>
Mix with the "right" type, get the best teachers with a much lower teacher / pupil ratio
=>
Be a doctor or lawyer or if you've no brains an auctioner or work in insurance.
=>
Don't worry too much about the common man, because you don't even have to associate with him.

I think if you did a statisical analysis of CAO options filled out by students. You would find quite a high correlation between Medicine and Law, even though these careers are complete different they are both "prestigious".