Post-modernism.... a lovely thing it is!

The expression — postmodernism — seems to be used casually to connote styles of contemporary times. But, postmodernism is a serious philosophical perspective. And, that perspective is central to you because it conveys the perspective that you have chosen consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, explicitly or implicitly, knowingly or unknowingly, with regrets or without regrets.... What's it all about?

Postmodernism is a counterpoint to modernity. Modernity, in my view, is a perspective that emerged with great strength in the nineteenth century. (Indeed, it was so strong that an afterglow persists into present times. And that glow is understandable: the claim of modernity seems so sensible.) Modernity posits that scientific knowledge can be certain. All one needs to do is accept the precepts of logical positivism defined (in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition) as:

"a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless called also logical empiricism"

So, where's the problem, buster? Dos problemas, Señors, Señoras, y Señoritas.

Logical positivism (i) demands conclusive verification (through observation or experimentation) and
(ii) excludes metaphysical considerations. Each of these tenets is problematic.

Conclusive verification became problematic in the early twentieth century. Three circumstances are compelling.

I. Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976) enunciated the uncertainty principle or principle of indeterminism (in 1929). That principle is defined (same source) in these words: "it is impossible to discern simultaneously and with high accuracy both the position and the momentum of a particle (as an electron)." The better one aspect is known (e. g., position) the less well known is the other (viz., momentum [or energy]). Uncertainty was certain how ironic.

II. Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) enunciated the incompleteness theorem (in 1931). The essence of this theorem is that "the various branches of mathematics are based in part on propositions that are not provable within the system itself, although they may be proved by means of logical (metamathematical) systems external to mathematics" (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 5^th edition). A paraphrase of the theorem asserts that any system which is supposedly complete contains a contradiction; resolving that contradiction will expand the system; but that expanded version, too, will have a contradiction, requiring resolution; thus, the system spirals away and retains an inherent imperfection.

III. In the past several decades, chaos theory (or deterministic chaoplexity) has been enunciated. The essence of chaos theory is that some systems are deterministic, but that determinism is completely dependent on the infinitesimal initial conditions. But the infinitesimal is unknowable either because of physical uncertainty or mathematical incompleteness.

It's quite an irony. One of the great achievements of twentieth century science was to establish unequivocally that science cannot offer ultimate answers. (And, how are we proceeding in the new century?)

This conclusion is hard to swallow by die-hard believers in science's power. But the conclusion is not surprise to either historians or sociologists who study science as a human enterprise.

The historians note that scientists change their views. A favorite example is the shift from the Ptolemaic view (Earth is the center of the entire UNIVERSE) to the Copernican view (Earth is merely a planet in one solar system in one galaxy among many). Equally good examples exist in biology. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a gene was an invariant, discrete entity at a specific position on a chromosome. Now, we think that alleles mutate to other forms, that eukaryotic genes are most often split, that some genes are able to jump to new locations, and (now) that some genes expand in size. Of course, we (scientists and science students) find revision a sound practice. But, revision undermines the concept of any bit of knowledge being conclusively verifiable. Such certainty is not to be had.

The sociologists are equally unsurprised. They note that scientists use a form of reporting that is at odds with the process that led to discovery. Scientists publish observations that are "original, positive, and noteworthy." The "positive" is an especially restrictive circumstance. A scientists does not report, "I tried this and it didn't work and then I tried that and it didn't work either." Rather, the presentation appears as follows: a hypothesis was conceived, tested, and verified. But that sequence rarely describes the chronology. The "original, positive, and noteworthy" criteria affect the form of reporting. Stated another way, the manner in which scientists report findings is an agreement achieved by consensus and that manner of reporting misrepresents the process. The manner of reporting makes scientists "look just so damn smart." The deception was appealing because the perception that scientists are oh-so smart gave social status. But the process is, nonetheless, a deception and deceptions are, ultimately, corrosive. Ironically, the group most deceived was those who were about to join the scientific enterprise. More generally, the deception however innocent and unintended is inconsistent with claims that science produces a truth that is "analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment."

Science fares no better by the second premise of logical positivism, viz., that "metaphysical theories are... strictly meaningless." The failure of science to be certain, complete, and fully deterministic means that there needs to be some other understanding of "how we know."

Post-modernists assert that all knowledge is conditional, provisional, and contingent. Circumstance, individual conditions, chance, the confluence of unexpected (independent [unrelated]) events... all play a part in outcomes. Reality is not fixed, but is dependent on perspective. "Facts" are not immutable truths but are subject to revision.

Logical positivism claims that there are unique truths and that individuals need to conform to those truths. Postmodernism claims that truth is a construct a set of choices arising form a perspective which is free to change. Logical positivism claims that the metaphysical is irrelevant. Post modernism asserts that the metaphysical is central... Hmmm... seems like time for a definition of "metaphysical..."

Here's that definition (once again from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary....)

metaphysical 1 : of or relating to the principles underlying a particular study or subject 2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural

The phrase "perceptible to the senses" is central. Remember the claim from Sir Francis Bacon? ..."we know the world through our senses"? Can this claim be validated? The post-modernists say, "No!" And John Donne, author of the Sacred Sonnets, (who lost the battle four centuries ago) informs us through his poetry that "we know the world through our souls." Is this view like the conditional, provisional, and contingent? Was Donne "right"?

Whither science? Whither you?

(And, additionally, what are the complaints against post modernism? Are the complaints valid? How do adherents to post modernism respond?)