Sometimes I thought I had it all figured out

[Goblinmonger]

and then Po-mo gets pulled out as a defense of religion over science.

And I'm an English/Communication guy, not a scientist, and I can instantly see the problems with that philosophy.

[dmallind]

1. po-mo?

[Goblinmonger]

2. Postmodernism

Sorry, what we always called in in college debate.

[dmallind]

5. Not sure how that's relevant to science OR religion.

Post-modernist what? Literature? Philosophy? Music? How linked?

[rrneck]

3. Po mo works fine for any number of things, but empirical proof ain't one of them. nt

[Goblinmonger]

4. As a literature teacher, I agree completely.

Very, very cool stuff coming out of the po-mo movement in literature. David Lynch is one of my favorite directors.

[rrneck]

6. I'm a po mo artist (more or less). Labels are dicey. :) nt

[Goblinmonger]

7. Nice

What kind of stuff do you do?

I really like the po mo of the literature/art world. Just not quite sure it is the best argument why religion is good an science bad.

[rrneck]

9. The latest piece

involves a wooden box, spray foam insulation, fabric, kitty litter, sand, aluminum flashing, gold leaf, barbed wire and one way glass. Oh, and since I'm technically a painter I'll paint on it as well.

For my part there is no argument for why religion is good and science is bad. Might as well argue about whether screwdrivers are better than crescent wrenches. Of course, I'm most familiar with po mo as it relates to visual arts, and I haven't given it much thought since college. When it comes to visual arts, po mo was inevitable. Where the hell were we supposed to go after Ives Klein and Ad Reinhardt?

[lib_wit_it]

11. Isn't David Lynch a Repuclican? Maybe not relevant to you, but I'm boycotting them when I can.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Yeah, he's a Reagan admiring libertarian

But basically just a crazy bastard. Here's his quotation about politics:

"I don't understand politics. I don't understand the concept of two sides. And I think that probably there's good on both sides, bad on both sides, and there's a middle ground. But it never seems to come to the middle ground. And it's very frustrating watching it, and seemingly we're not moving forward."

I don't see a lot of his political leanings coming in through his films and his films are awesome. Now reading Ender's Game or something is like reading a Young Republican handbook.

[progressoid]

16. ugh - Ender's Game

I slogged through that. I hate it when I force myself through a book, hoping that it will get better. Only to realize I should have just stopped when I had that first feeling that it wasn't worth the time.

[ZombieHorde]

8. I love pro-mo, but the best argument for science is it works.

Science lives up to its promises, while most religions don't.

[Deep13]

10. post modernism is a deconstruction and...

...therefore, not a defense of anything. The only way it is a defense of religion is if one assumes that religion is the default answer in the event of any failure of science. Pointing out that the scientific tradition gave us social Darwinism, "scientific" racism, and eugenics is not the same as saying religion is right in its claims.

[AlbertCat]

12. the scientific tradition gave us social Darwinism, "scientific" racism, and eugenics

scientific tradition? What's that? Observation, experimentation and confirmation? These things DEBUNK social Darwinism, "scientific" racism, and eugenics!

Science didn't give us the atomic bomb. It merely discovered that an atom can be split.

What people do with what science discovers is not necessarily science.

[Deep13]

15. So, as a historian, how can I tell...

...what developments are "real" science and what aren't? Sure science debunked those things, but not right away. How do we know what paradigms of today will be debunked in 100 years?

On your second point, wasn't the discovery of fissionability a necessary precondition for the atomic bomb? Doesn't the power structure generally employ intellectuals, including scientists, to further its agenda?

[Rob H.]

14. Here's why I think po-mo posts are breaking out over there

in support of religion: whoever writes a post can craft long, mostly incomprehensible paragraphs of 100% pure gibberish (bonus points for using the word "quantum" as many times as possible) and then, when someone very understandably points out, "What you wrote makes pretty much no sense at all," the person who wrote it can say, "Well, if what I'm saying doesn't seem to make sense, perhaps you just aren't able to understand it." (Condescending douche much?)

No, I don't understand it, but it's not because my reading comprehension skills aren't up to par. If a person is writing something that even after a third or fourth read does nothing to explain or further their point, they're doing it wrong. It's obscurantism, wrapped in pseudosciencce, inside nonsense.

Apparently, some people hear the old saw, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit," and think, "That's a great idea! I'll do that!"