Postmodernism is basically the view that there is no objective truth.
Nothing can be truly known, nothing is totally certain, everything is cultural and relative and subjective.
Science is no exception to this ideology.

First, what is "objective truth?"
I define objective truth as being a statement about reality that is true in reality. For example, the Pythagorean theorem is objectively true because it holds up every single time in reality. The theory of Evolution is objectively true because in reality life evolves.

I found a great site that deconstructs basic Postmodern ideals using simple logic: The Nature of Objective Reality. With an objective reality being defined as whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not.
It is worth reading, to summarize very quickly:

There can be 2 possible realities
Reality 1: There is an objective reality
Reality 2: There is no objective reality
If Reality 2 is sufficiently proven to be the true reality, then the statement "there is no objective reality" is the objective reality.
Meaning there is an objective reality after all.
Therefore Reality 2 just falsified itself.
Reality 1 holds up.
You can replace the concept of "objective reality" with "objective truth" and quite a few other examples of objectivity vs non-objectivity and the result is always the same.
Objectivity is inescapable.

However, I am sure a postmodernist would be quick to point out that was using deductive logic, and science uses inductive logic, which is problematic (Problem of Induction). There is no way around the problem, and there is no way around the fact that inductive objectivity is attained through subjective observation. Even deduction requires axioms of knowledge to function, and axioms cannot be proven, they are assumed. Where is the objective truth now?

Science builds up knowledge while philosophy has the knack of breaking down our knowledge.

The thing is however, we need induction and deduction despite their blaring failings. They are all we have, using them is inescapable. In defense of objectivity, I can play the dirt card against the postmodernist: "if science is nothing more than opinion with no real basis for truth, then I suppose you wouldn't mind jumping off a skyscraper thinking gravity is all nonsense, or not going to the doctor to get that nasty looking mole on your back checked out?"

But that is rather cheap. So I say this, the very fact that induction has given us so much knowledge, and the fact that deduction holds up because we can be sure that things/axioms do not contradict themselves, is itself evident of an objective reality. If reality were indeed chaotic and non-deterministic and contradicting and completely what we make of it for ourselves, just our own interpretation of countless possible all equally valid realities; then knowledge would be impossible. Science would not have developed this far if at all. Consciousness itself may be impossible in such a reality.
Given the circumstances there can only be one objective reality. The objective reality is often hidden, but it can still be known.


Yes this thread is aimed at Gaymer. Not for debate purposes, but because I thought he'd find it interesting. Gogogo.

this isnt what gamer believes in at all, so your targeting of xp is irrelevent, regardless, i agree with you except for the point where things cannot contradict themselves....

_________________

huh? When did I imply he believes in anything?

Reality is subjective.

_________________

this is general serious, 7 word posts are not acceptable here, it requires tl;dr posts or something of major substance

_________________

Hey, man, she aint spammin - it's just her opinion.

_________________

Alright. My opinon is the second reality can't be true. It's either there is no objective reality excepting that nothing is certain in true, or there is one. I personally would agree that things will prove themselves true time and time again. Maybe not every time, and we might find discrepancies but we don't know for sure that there aren't set rules at the present time. Maybe we'll never know but I find it's easier to see logic in the universe if there are.

I find philosophy is often just thinking, while science is fact searching. I love both but for different reasons. Philosophy will never truly kill science as it has no basis. It's questioning the universe.

Anyway it's interesting. I won't live my life by philosophy because it can lead to stupid situations. I think looking at a situation from all angles is best.

Maybe postmodernists are right if they assume my interpretation of what the latter objective reality should be, but as it stands now it's wrong. Maybe it can be used as a simplified expression but ultimately it's wrong, but only by a detail that it's absolute. At the current time I'll side against it.

remember sicks post about questions and answers?

I just imagined science as answers and philosophy as questions

_________________

hmm... I've thought about that. It's oversimplified and imperfect. But it's interesting. Also the whole questions included science and philosophy. The questions with no answers.

Alright I've done some research on this now. Some Postmodernists believe in there being no objective truth but it doesn't define the post modernist movement at all. Instead they challenge a lot of past philosophical ideals, and even on that the name is derived from the time period, not the content.

Wammy is actually referring to anti-realism, not to be confused with things like actual movements. As some Postmodernists have considered it, or accepted it, it does not define postmodenism as a whole. Rather post modernism is almost a rebelliousness against past philosophy due to distinctly different mindsets. This makes them argue against past ideals in a way to find new ground in an almost constructive through destructive action way.

I'm guessing Wammy just didn't find all the facts and took anti-realism as post modernism. My points still apply, just to a different subject. Anyway it happens to the best of us at one point or another anyways.

oh great, im postmodernist with a side of anti realism according to that definition


(signature omitted because of short post)

_________________

I personally find my unofficial early version of anti-realism to be a better definition even if it's not as simplified. Anyways, I can't find either side to be perfectly true yet. And if I can find a flaw that ruins a philosophical theory I don't mind putting it out there. But I won't turn up old philosophy by new standards just because. No point I can see to that other than being juvenile. Old stuff still has merit, and helped make the foundations of new stuff. We'll rip it out if it's wrong but until that's obvious no reason to. That might make me not a post modernist as my view is opposed to theirs in that way.

in the point of forkheads, im mostly traditional because the past was great, but, on the world, i like to break the bounds of current reality, i love things like quantum mechanics and the nuetrinos that may have been found to go nfaster then light speed, and i fight for that more then things like theroy of relativity and nucleur physics, ill always fight to break the common perception of reality, thats my goal

_________________

That's less of postmodernism which is just rejecting old philosophy in favor of new. And also not much anti-realism which bascially says there are no rules(except in my changed definition which excludes itself). You're more in favor of Objectivism which favors expansion of knowledge through personal understanding. It says you don't know things for sure, as they're based on reality and your goal is not to philosophize about them but to figure them out through yourself.

see, but im much less about finding new things that work and much more focused on breaking old things, in favor of new things, the idea is to break, not work, once i make the break , new things can happen, amazing things, but im much more focused on making the area then investigating the reasons

_________________