Hershberger recommendations on understanding pomo: “I wanted to understand this in order to be able to intelligently refute it”

His brief review at Amazon:

5.0 out of 5 stars. I wanted to understand this in order to be able to intelligently refute it
By Duane Hershberger on December 12, 2017

I came to this book as a result of an interview Dr. Jordan Peterson conducted with Dr. Hicks. I was already trying to understand postmodernism, mainly because of the outrageous claims made (consciously of unconsciously) by its adherents. For example, how speech one dislikes is _literally_ violence, how ALL cultures, moral systems and viewpoints are equally valid; except Western Civilization, which is evil. How the meaning of everything is solely up to the person reading the “text,” where “text” is everything written, spoken or an unfolding event. How biological differences between male and female do not exist, but that we need females in positions of power for “diversity.” Why academic rigor should be banned, for being sexist, in the study of Engineering — claimed by the head of Purdue’s Department of Engineering Education.

I wanted to understand this in order to be able to intelligently refute it. Dr. Hicks book is not the only way I pursued this.

Pauline Rosenau’s _Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences_ is an excellent book for understanding the nuances of postmodernist internecine struggles. It is, however, a more difficult read because of that. Explaining postmodernist thought requires understanding deep logical contradictions, and we owe Dr. Rosenau much for a Herculean effort.

Alan Sokal’s _Fashionable Nonsense_ nicely illuminates the internal incoherence of postmodernist thinking about the hard sciences, and their scientifically illiterate use of science. It provides a whirlwind tour of postmodernist thought in their own words, and believe me, you probably couldn’t get through the originals. But, it explains more what than why.

Paul Gross’s _Higher Superstition_ is a worthwhile read, but less rigorous than others.

I read Thomas Kuhn’s _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ to hear from a postmodernist critic of science who at least writes in conventional English. Unlike, say, Luce Irigaray.

All the above are recommended, but Dr. Hicks’s book is the most useful single tome I’ve yet read on the topic. Highly, highly recommended. I just hope his next book starts where this one left off, addressing the epistemological challenge postmodernism poses to modernism.

2 thoughts on “Hershberger recommendations on understanding pomo: “I wanted to understand this in order to be able to intelligently refute it””

  1. I actually liked “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. It’s not unreasonable to examine science from a sociological standpoint, after all–scientists constitute a group, with unique behaviors and culture, and understanding how those behaviors and culture affect our research is a valid question. Kuhn approached it from a fairly moderate standpoint, with the intent of understanding the effects of sociological realities on scientific investigation, rather than the more common Postmodernist attempt to discredit science as a whole. “Critic” in this context does not mean “one who attacks”, but rather the more honorable “one who evaluates”. There are some good insights into this book.

    That said, while I’ve encountered numerous scientists who have read the book, I’ve encountered few who agree with the book. I myself do not, at least not entirely. The book is too much theory, and not enough actual data–the conclusions are tenuously supported at best. I also think that anyone who lumps “science” together into one large bin has a perspective that’s inherently flawed. The differences between, say, a physicist and an archaeologist, are tremendous, on par with the differences between an accountant and an engineer! T

  2. Hi Stephen,

    I’m wondering if people reading your book with the desire to refute leftism/postmodernism, is if not anything, a major problem? Much of your book, as I read it, deals with the philosophical underpinnings, rationalizations and precedents at the root of postmodernism. It seems the part that conservatives are attaching to though is really just the last chapter, because they don’t go in trying to understand or really even solve the issues that postmodernists address, rather they are trying to use it as a weapon to defeat the leftists and their progress in the culture wars.

    I’m reminded about Ayn Rand’s appeal to her readers to always remember that the problems in society were rooted in philosophy and a rash move into politics, would not resolve these issues. Another great example of this was a recent interview you had on youtube, where you corrected the hosts, when he suggested that these postmodern ideas/tendencies somehow originated outside Western Culture? Anyone who read your book remotely, knows that these ideas are rooted in French, German and American Philosophy.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *