How do you deal with postmodernism?

[NatsuTerran]

So I have a professor this semester teaching a science research techniques course, and he is obviously a Christian. In his first lecture, he made a big deal about the limitations of science and how there cannot be an objective reality that we can ever truly "know." As you can imagine, the examples used are those of the scientific method providing wrong or needing to be revised results due to limits of technology at the time, such as Copernicus vs. Galileo.

He drew two circles on the board, one encapsulating the other like a donut drawing. The inside circle was labeled the sensory world, what we can observe through science, and the outside circle is reality as it exists that we cannot access. The sticking point is that because science doesn't show if something is officially true, or fact, but only shows probabilities of truth, he wanted to say that it is just a tool in addition to other ways of coming to know what is true, with the other four being tradition, authority, logic, and intuition (he seemed to be begging the question as to whether that last one even existed scientifically).

My initial reaction was that, while we cannot officially declare something as a fact because science evolves as it goes, the probabilities of methodologically sound scientific methods should entail what we believe due to how strong the track record is in contrast to those other four, and those other four are subjective at that (he didn't seem to see that as a limitation). Subjectivity is clearly a flaw, as how could one person's intuition give them insight into truth if another person's intuition told them the opposite? Special pleading/favoritism would have to occur. There was also a point made about someone trying to prove God's existence through mathematics, and how that wouldn't make an atheist believe in God despite it being higher probability. My response in my head was that such an endeavor only smacks of science but is not methodologically sound. As the professor himself said our scientific observations stop at the Big Bang, how could we know the factors that influence that event itself? The factors of that existence prior would determine the probabilities, thus making any attempt non-scientific to prove God.

"Don't ever let a scientist tell you that you are being irrational or illogical for a belief that you hold" was a sticking point, and that scientists must simply have no comment or opinion about anything outside of that sensory world circle. So basically, all of this boils down to postmodernism: Your reality is the only reality that matters. What you believe is real, etc. I always hated this kind of thinking. Just because our best form of gaining knowledge and insight into reality is not perfect, doesn't mean we should not rely solely on it in exclusion to other faulty forms of insight. So many problems stem from people using common sense/intuition as opposed to science. It just seems like a defense, why should we have faith that the most probabilistic outcome will be wrong? It's as if they are hoping for current "facts" to be wrong so as to verify their deeply held intuitions. It's to me like someone opting to not wear a seatbelt on the chance that the vehicle is submerged, rather than the much higher probability that you are in a normal accident.

But I want to hear what you think, and how you deal with postmodernism and Christians who try to hide behind it as a last line of defense for their faith.

One side question, do you think faith in modern science (highest probability of being correct) is still being faithful in a sense? Why or why not? "I have faith science is correct" is a phrase I wouldn't disagree with, is that the same meaning of faith used by religious people?

[Icarus]

Transfer to a University that can provide you with competent professors. If he's teaching a research techniques course he should be teaching you how to acquire quantitative data using a variety of methods; not tackling the philosophy of 'what is reality'. His obvious bias will effect what he's teaching you and how he teaches so you'll never get the education you deserve.

[Plu]

tradition, authority, logic, and intuition

The first two are official logical fallacies, the third one is science and the last one we teach people to ignore when doing science because it isn't trustworthy.

I kinda have to support Icarus. This guy isn't qualified to teach science. You could also try taking it up with the main board of your school. Maybe they're smart enough to get rid of this guy.

[NatsuTerran]

I'm kind of hoping it was just a first lecture introduction sort of thing. My learning professor last semester went on a tangent about how free will is likely impossible to be true because for Psychology to even work, people need to be predictable, and because people are predictable based on external factors(chaos theory aside), free will is just in our imagination. That was fine and well cause I agreed with him, but it was never much dwelled on for the rest of the semester.

I've been having quite a few problems with postmodern professors lately though. It was a bit annoying, but expected whenever the courses were Anthropology and Basic Texts, but now it is making its way into my Theories of personality and Research courses. In the first one the professor went on tangents about how we are terrible at predicting people and Psychology hasn't done anything other than get predictions on the macro level (only thing that matters to me due to chaos theory), and the latter professor I already discussed.

But I'm also interested in learning how to cope with postmodernist thought. Some things about his lecture really seemed to be begging the question that even I, not well-versed in Philosophy, could detect. He mentioned intuition as being outside the sensory world in terms of observation (we can observe traits but not the "thing itself," such as with Depression), but he also admitted that 50% of Psychologists don't even believe in intuition. I kept thinking, how does he know if Intuition is actually a real thing and not just a subset of the other things: experience, tradition, authority, etc.? Our intuition could very well be a reflection of those, and thus wouldn't "exist." Thus it seems trivial to throw it in with the things science can't touch, when you haven't demonstrated that it is real in the first place.

[Colanth]

He drew two circles on the board, one encapsulating the other like a donut drawing. The inside circle was labeled the sensory world, what we can observe through science, and the outside circle is reality as it exists that we cannot access. The sticking point is that because science doesn't show if something is officially true, or fact, but only shows probabilities of truth

Which is exactly what it's supposed to do.  That's one of its greatest strengths, and one of religion's greatest weaknesses.

he wanted to say that it is just a tool in addition to other ways of coming to know what is true, with the other four being tradition

Can only show us what's always been done, not what's true.

authority

If applied correctly, this could give some information.  When applied incorrectly, like allowing religious authority to tell us how biology works, it usually yields nonsense.

logic

That's part of science.

and intuition

Intuitively, the Earth is the center of the universe.  The planet is flat.  The ocean meets the sky.

Intuition is about the single worst method of arriving at the truth.

My initial reaction was that, while we cannot officially declare something as a fact because science evolves as it goes, the probabilities of methodologically sound scientific methods should entail what we believe due to how strong the track record is in contrast to those other four

Science doesn't work that way.  The probability that something is true is based on evidence and falsification.

Subjectivity is clearly a flaw

If used to arrive at an objective truth, it's not a flaw, it's using the wrong tool, like hammering in a nail with a blueprint.

There was also a point made about someone trying to prove God's existence through mathematics, and how that wouldn't make an atheist believe in God despite it being higher probability. My response in my head was that such an endeavor only smacks of science but is not methodologically sound.

It doesn't even smack of science.  Objective evidence that God objectively exists would be science.

As the professor himself said our scientific observations stop at the Big Bang

He's definitely not qualified to teach cosmology.  The universe was opaque for a long time  after the BB - our observations start once the opacity cleared.

how could we know the factors that influence that event itself?

If you're sitting in a dark soundproof room, but it was getting cloudy when you entered the room, and when you leave it a few hours later the street is wet, you don't think "street watering faeries".

The factors of that existence prior would determine the probabilities

Yes, in the above scenario, there's a probability that faeries did it.  But I'd put my money on rain.

"Don't ever let a scientist tell you that you are being irrational or illogical for a belief that you hold"

Unless the belief is irrational or illogical.  (BTW, "irrational" doesn't mean "crazy", it means "without reason".)

and that scientists must simply have no comment or opinion about anything outside of that sensory world circle.

Not exacxtly.  Scientists don't examine things unless they have evidence to examine.  Science isn't the study of assertions, and that's all religion is - assertion.

So basically, all of this boils down to postmodernism: Your reality is the only reality that matters. What you believe is real, etc.

He's not saying that, he's saying that just because there's no reason to believe something, it's not logically coherent and there's no evidence for it - is no reason to not actively believe it if you want to.

That kind of thinking has no place in a science classroom.

I always hated this kind of thinking. Just because our best form of gaining knowledge and insight into reality is not perfect, doesn't mean we should not rely solely on it in exclusion to other faulty forms of insight. So many problems stem from people using common sense/intuition as opposed to science. It just seems like a defense, why should we have faith that the most probabilistic outcome will be wrong? It's as if they are hoping for current "facts" to be wrong so as to verify their deeply held intuitions.

It's exactly that.  If you were raised, from the womb, to believe in one god or another, that god HAS to exist for YOUR existence to have any meaning.  They NEED their god to be real, more than they need oxygen.

But I want to hear what you think, and how you deal with postmodernism and Christians who try to hide behind it as a last line of defense for their faith.

I look at them as if they had just told me that they actually live on Mars and just commute to Earth every day.  When they ask me what's wrong, I tell them that what they just said is what's wrong, and that it's SO wrong that there isn't even any way to explain how wrong it is, let alone why it's wrong.

Then I make a very obvious attempt to leave, as if I'm afraid that they may "go postal" at any moment.

One side question, do you think faith in modern science (highest probability of being correct) is still being faithful in a sense?

Science isn't about probablility, that's math.  Science is about evidence.

If you mean accepting that science is our best chance of understanding the workings of the universe, it's not being "faithful", it's being realistic.

"I have faith science is correct" is a phrase I wouldn't disagree with

I would.  I try to understand enough about enough subjects that my "bullshit detector" has a chance of working, but I never accept the word of a scientist just because he's a scientist.  The motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba, which roughly means don't take anyone's word for it (meaning "just because, he's famous, he's a scientist, etc.").  And if they don't know what science is, no one does.

is that the same meaning of faith used by religious people?

It is if you use it that way.  Theists think that's how we "believe in science".  Scientists, most scientists, anyway, don't have faith in science, they have faith in the scientific method being our best way to understand the universe.

[Lucid]

I've yet to find a more rational view that Solipsism , your teacher may be not the brightest when it comes to science but who knows.

[Colanth]

I've yet to find a more rational view that Solipsism

If you're a solipsist, to whom were you addressing this post?

[Lucid]

I've yet to find a more rational view that Solipsism

If you're a solipsist, to whom were you addressing this post?

the professor was a skeptic of science on the basis of its short comings , I was just continuing that logic. nothing is knowable, you just have to have a criteria for your assumptions , best guesses is the best we can hope for with the bottle neck of human perspective limiting us.

as to how you deal with it? you don't , there's no definitive victories in life there's just faith that is rewarding and faith that isn't. try and have a lot of the prior and not much of the latter.

[Graceless]

I believe Colanth was saying that, if you are a solipsist, why do you communicate with us when we could be figments of your imagination? Better to save your breath and ignore us phantasms.

[Lucid]

I believe Colanth was saying that, if you are a solipsist, why do you communicate with us when we could be figments of your imagination? Better to save your breath and ignore us phantasms.

nice dichotomy

if I don't know you're real I must know you aren't real? come on now. that's just being ignorant

[Graceless]

It was intended as humor. The fact that you interpreted it as a genuine question speaks volumes to your mental acuity.

[Solitary]

Pragmatism works, but that doesn't mean it is the truth, but if it doesn't work it does. Religion works for many people if they ignore the truth when it doesn't.   :roll: Solipsism is a mere opinion that only the self exists or can be proved to exist. People that believe this have an extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's own feelings , desires, , etc.; are egoistic and self absorbed, and like libertinism in politics.   :roll:   Solitary