6.2 Aristotle’s Laws of Thought

Aristotle's "Laws of Thought" date back to the earliest days of Western Philosophy. They shape the basic structure of western thought, science, and its overall worldview - the worldview that can so puzzle many non-Westerners. Many philosophers (and mathematicians) who followed Aristotle such as Locke, Leibnitz, Schopenhauer, and Boole, have modified and enhanced his principles. However, the initial intent has remained the same even if the laws, themselves, get reformulated. These laws are fundamental logical rules, with a long tradition in the history of western philosophy, which together define how a rational mind must think. To break any of the laws of thought (for example, to contradict oneself) is to be irrational by definition. These three classic laws of thought were fundamental to the development of classical logic. They are:

• Law of Identity - an object is the same as itself:
  A ⇔ A
• Law of Noncontradiction - contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive:
  ¬(A ∧ ¬A)
• Law of the Excluded Middle - Everything (that is, every proposition) must either be true or not true. There is no in-between:
  A ∨ ¬A

Actually, with just a little logical manipulation, I think I can show that the Law of Noncontradiction is the same as the Law of the Excluded Middle. There is a rule in logic called De Morgan's Law. It has several representations, but one of them is:
    ¬(P ∧ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∨ ¬Q
If we let P = A, and Q = ¬A, then
    ¬(A ∧ ¬A) ⇔ ¬A ∨ ¬¬A,
which is the same as:
    ¬(A ∧ ¬A) ⇔ ¬A ∨ A
The left hand side is the Law of Noncontradiction, and the right hand side is the Law of the Excluded Middle.

These are self-evident logical principles - fundamental axioms that cannot be proved (or disproved), but must be accepted (or rejected) a priori. In other words, there is nothing "under" them - they cannot be decomposed into more basic principles. They are similar, conceptually, to the axioms in Euclidean Geometry (e.g. the famous "Parallel Postulate"). Other types of geometry are possible, but if you begin with certain postulates you get Euclidean geometry. Other postulates generate other geometries. In logic, other postulates could be substituted for the Laws of Thought, and in fact have been in other traditions such as Buddhism, which celebrates contradiction. Paraconsistent logic (a type of logic that deals with contradictions differently than classical logic) does not depend on the Law of Noncontradiction. Even Greek philosophy before Aristotle (and Parmenides, who proposed similar laws) did not always embrace these concepts. But practically everything we know of traditional Western Philosophy and Logic embodies these principles. Preceding Aristotle by over a century, Heraclitus believed that contradictions were necessary - that their existence was essential to a thing's identity:

"Not only could it be stated that identity is the strife of oppositions but that there could be no identity without such strife within the entity."

He argued that because all things change, they must have already had in them "that which they were not". Only the existence of such contradictions could account for the change we see in the world. For example,

"Cold things grow warm; warm grows cold; wet grows dry; parched grows moist."

The defenders of Aristotle’s three laws of thought quickly learned that they had to establish the context for the application of these laws, because they were frequently assailed with counter-examples that seemed to violate them. It became clear that the laws could not be employed loosely or in poorly defined conditions. So, they began to require a “definite logic” model. In this model, the terms and the expressions formed from these terms must be clearly definable and knowable. But this ideal is rarely achieved in the real world, and we are forced to make assertions about things in less than precise, fuzzy terms. Not until the creation of Mathematical Logic by Boole in the 19th century, and later Russell and others, was logic able to refine its expression with mathematical, perfectly clear terms and operations.

This development in logic admirably suited the predispositions of the Western mind, and certainly helped shape it. Western philosophy to a very large extent has been founded upon the Laws of Thought and similar ground rules. We believe that our thinking should strive to eliminate ideas that are vague, contradictory, or ambiguous, and the best way to accomplish this, and thereby ground our thinking in clear and distinct ideas, is to strictly follow laws of thought.

But are these laws simply axioms, or can the be proved? It doesn't appear that there is a direct proof, but to some degree they must be accepted a priori. However, Aristotle pointed out attempts to logically justify these axioms were unnecessary. He held that the axioms of classical logic are self evident because 1) all syllogisms rely on them, and 2) because they can be defended through retortion.

A defense through retortion occurs whenever an argument must rely upon the very principle it seeks to challenge or overturn. Any attempt to form a syllogism to refute the Laws of Thought will have to rely on the very axioms it seeks to overturn, leading to an implicit reliance on the axioms, which is a self refutation (i.e., the "Stolen Concept fallacy"). In other words, it is impossible for the laws of logic to not be correct. If I were to say, "the Law of Non-Contradiction is false", this presupposes the Law of Non-Contradiction itself, because I am simultaneously intending to convey, "It is not true that the Law of Identity is true".

In spite of how dominant these laws of thought have been, they have not been without their critics, and philosophers from Heraclitus to Hegel have leveled powerful arguments against them. But the issue does not seem to be whether the laws are applicable or not, but where and when are they applicable. Certainly, the laws of thought have a place, but what is that place? As Walt Whitman wrote in “Song of Myself”:

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then, I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

Also as Nagarjuna, one of the fathers of Buddhism, wrote in "Verses on the Middle Way":

"Everything is real and not real.
Both real and not real.
Neither real nor not real.
That is Lord Buddha's teaching."

The time to abandon strict laws of thought arises when we are beyond the realm to which ordinary logic applies, or as when “the sphere of thought has ceased, the nameable ceases” (Nāgārjuna). A similar sentiment is expressed by Wittgenstein's assertion in the Tractatus,

"what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence"

Many people who value rational thought, objectivity, and clear, precise thinking have no doubt been frustrated while engaging in fruitless debates with those who abandon the Rules of Thought. Anyone who has had to counter statements like, "your truth is not the same as my truth", "everything is relative", "what is proof for you is not proof for me", "your facts are just your opinion" has dealt with this first-hand. I have been frustrated in my conversations with relativists, sophists, self-styled mystics, and post-modernists who toyed with words and meanings simply for the pleasure of being evasive and derailing rational discourse. They equivocate on the important concepts like truth, meaning, free will, reality, faith, belief, trust, experience, existence, good, bad, etc. When they sense they are being pinned down in a logical contradiction, they do an end-run around logic and question the very premises of rationality (for example, the Laws of Thought), subverting the entire effort. They redefine important terms, frequently in mid-discussion, using them in varying ways that suit their desired outcome (note - it is always important to define terms up front to make sure you are not talking at cross purposes with someone!) There doesn't appear to be a sincere desire to arrive at a clear conclusion, but more a desire to put the person promoting the rational world-view off balance, questioning the very premises needed for an exchange of ideas, throwing logic out the window, and wallowing in mystical babble simply for the fun of it.

The Persian philosopher, Avicenna (also known as Ibn Sina) has a famous quote about how to deal with those who disregard the Law of Noncontradiction:

"Anyone who denies the Law of Noncontradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

Of course I don't recommend that, but it definitely shows that even great minds can become a little peeved with intransigent illogical thinking.

Philosophical naturalists and realists attempt to understand the world using a reason and evidence-based approach. They employ logic and empiricism, filtered through external review and correction, iterative refinement, and ultimately balanced by informed judgment which also has to take unknowns and risk into account. Experience has shown this to bear the greatest fruit if the goal is truly to understand the world.

Those who approach these questions from a religious or mystical point of view, will achieve an outcome which embodies whatever results they feel are enlightening, thrilling, comforting, uplifting, or that allow them to persist in their irrational (by definition) and incoherent (i.e., disorganized and internally inconsistent) mystically-based world view. To allow the introduction of multiple, inconsistent concepts during an exchange causes confusion because of the impreciseness (and even trickery) of language. The epistemologies feeding our different world views (science/evidence/reason/naturalism vs mystical/religious/irrational/revelatory) differ. The irrational approach is based on revelation/inspiration/emotion/myth/sacred texts, and the scientific world view is based on observation/experiment/measurement/evidence/theory/methodology/coherence/critique. It is difficult, probably impossible, to bridge the gap between these diametrically opposite positions.

However, the irrational does have its place in our world. Humans are not robots, but are primarily emotional beings with a veneer of rationality laid on top. Not everything is best dealt with through a reductionist, rational approach. We would lead a very narrow existence, indeed, as well as barren and joyless, to try to apply these or similar laws to every human experience. Of what use is it to be entirely reason-based when enjoying the beauty of nature, the joy of your pet, or the laughter of friends and relatives. However, in the focused realm of science, whose goal is merely to explain how things work and of what they are made, this type of restricted and disciplined thought is a perfect fit.

6 Assumptions of Science

None of the philosophical questions we have explored are resolved, or else (obviously) they would not still be considered philosophical questions. The controversies and different points of view surrounding the nature of reality, the problem of induction, and the necessary assumption of a uniform universe still stir debate as to what scientific naturalism represents, what are its limits, and how well man can actually know the world. Having said all that I can on the subject, I must now leave it and bubble up one level to describe assumptions that science makes based on these convincing, but admittedly unresolved, principles.

6.1 Rejection of Magic

No one has addressed primitive beliefs in magic and superstition as well as Sir James Frazer, author of The Golden Bough. This was the first definitive description of the myriad explanatory techniques and coping mechanisms that pre-scientific people used to make sense of their world. Rather than using empirical methods of observation, hypothesis, test, and measurement, the long standing unsophisticated, intuitive methods they used to explain how the universe worked invoked what would today be called magic. These people found patterns in the world based on associations of ideas in the mind, either through similarity or proximity. According to Frazer, “the order on which magic reckons is merely an extension, by false analogy, of the order in which ideas present themselves to our minds.” Primitive societies, succumbing to this way of reasoning, relied on what he called “sympathetic magic” to explain events in the world. Two sub-categories of these phenomena subsumed the bulk of primitive magical thought:

• Law of Similarity (“like” produces “like”). This is the basis of voodoo, images, effigies, idols, and holy statues. Charms based on the Law of Similarity may be called Homeopathic of Imitative Magic. The Mandrake root, which resembles a man's form, is supposed to have magical properties. Rhinoceros horn, which bears a striking resemblance to a body part of virile male, is used as an aphrodisiac. Primitive cave paintings depicting of successful hunting scenes were thought to insure a successful outcome to the real hunt. Mistletoe was used in pre-modern times as a cure for epilepsy. It does not fall to the ground because it is rooted on the branch of a tree. It would seem to follow as a consequence that an epileptic cannot fall down as long as he carries a piece of mistletoe. Such a train of reasoning would probably be regard even now as reasonable by a large portion of humanity.


• Law of Contact (or Contagion) is based on the idea in which things that have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed. Charms based on the Laws of Contact are called Contagious magic. Our abhorrence at the idea of wearing a piece of clothing previously worn by a mass murderer, or receiving a blood transfusion from a violent criminal are demonstrations of this law at work. Relics of saints, or fragments from the “true cross” can supposedly transfer spiritual energy. A lucky shirt or lucky ritual such as crossing your fingers invoke the Law of Contact. Charms made from fingernail clippings, hair and other discards from a target of magic are frequently used.

Magic is a spurious system of natural law as well as a fallacious guide of conduct. It is more akin to a false science than a false religion. Magical systems attempt to express, explain, and exploit causality through an association of ideas – the first through similarity in form, the second in similarity of position. Magical thinking commits the mistake of assuming that things which resemble or were near each other are somehow the same or have some unseen but real connection and causal relationship. The magician believes he can produce an effect merely by imitating it (law of similarity), or that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact (law of contact).

There are countless examples of sympathetic magic in primitive and not-so-primitive societies – far too many to list here. But here is a sampling from The Golden Bough:

Among the Esquimaux boys are forbidden to play cat’s cradle, because if they did so their fingers might in later life become entangled in the harpoon-line... Here the taboo is obviously an application of the law of similarity... as the child’s fingers are entangled by the string in playing cat’s cradle, so they will be entangled by the harpoon line when he is a man and hunts whales. Again, among the Huzuls of the Carpathian Mountains the wife of a hunter may not spin while her husband is eating, or the game will turn and wind like the spindle, and the hunter will be unable to hit it. Here again the taboo is clearly derived from the law of similarity… In some of the East Indian islands any one who comes to the house of a hunter must walk straight in; he may not loiter at the door, for were he to do so, the game would in like manner stop in front of the hunter’s snares and then turn back, instead of being caught in the trap. For a similar reason it is a rule with the Toradjas of Central Celebes that no one may stand or loiter on the ladder of a house where there is a pregnant woman, for such delay would retard the birth of the child ... Malays engaged in the search for camphor eat their food dry and take care not to pound their salt fine. The reason is that the camphor occurs in the form of small grains deposited in the cracks of the trunk of the camphor tree. Accordingly it seems plain to the Malay that if, while seeking for camphor, he were to eat his salt finely ground, the camphor would be found also in fine grains; whereas by eating his salt coarse he ensures that the grains of the camphor will also be large … The chief product of some parts of Laos, a province of Siam, is lac. This is a resinous gum exuded by a red insect on the young branches of trees, to which the little creatures have to be attached by hand. All who engage in the business of gathering the gum abstain from washing themselves and especially from cleansing their heads, lest by removing the parasites from their hair they should detach the other insects from the boughs. Again, a Blackfoot Indian who has set a trap for eagles, and is watching it, would not eat rosebuds on any account; for he argues that if he did so, and an eagle alighted near the trap, the rosebuds in his own stomach would make the bird itch, with the result that instead of swallowing the bait the eagle would merely sit and scratch himself

The list of examples goes on and on. In Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, there is a scene where one of the soldiers objects to having his drawn likeness captured in a sketchbook. He rejects being compared to a superstitious native, but cannot otherwise account for his extreme reluctance. The implication is that, like the "savages" they are pursuing, he feels danger from sympathetic magic associated with a book containing his picture over which he has no control.

In our own lives, we subscribe to many superstitions and magical belief systems. Recently, the system called “The Law of Attraction”, popularized in the motion picture, “The Secret” encouraged visualization of desired outcomes to cause the outcomes to occur. This is more than just positive thinking – it is literally magic. The Law of Similarity, again, is at work here: a mental image of a thing is somehow similar to the thing itself. Also, we use homeopathic medicine when we believe water retains a “memory” of a curative agent that once was in it - this is the Law of Contact at work. And how many of us, normally rational in most of our decisions, continue to take large varieties of supplements and herbal remedies based on a recommendation or foggy personal recollection, and refuse to stop taking it in the face of proof that they don't work?

Science avoids magical explanations in favor of empirical observations, hypotheses, and experimentation. But we all seem to have weak areas where we let primitive magic drive our decisions.

5.3 Is Nature Uniform and Predictable?

The previous chapter, How can we have confidence in our inferences, investigated Inference and the Problem of Induction. Predictability and continuity from past to future, from the known to the unknown, from the small to the large, and from the near to the distant underlie our ability to make meaningful statements about the world. Out of necessity we assume that our knowledge about that which we can access tells us something useful about that which we cannot access due to distance, time, speed, size, or practicality.

But can we really make these assumptions? The principles of uniformity, homogeneity, and isotrophism (for which we have no deductive proof) are foundational principles underlying our ability to make warranted and defensible universal statements about nature. Without them, we can only talk about what we directly experience, and must leave as utterly unknown and unknowable that which we have not yet experienced.

As we have seen, there appears to be no deductive proof of uniformity or for the inferential process which requires it, and it goes without saying that you can't use induction to prove itself. But for all the reasons presented so far, the existance of a uniform and predictable universe is very likely to be the case - so likely that any other possibility is vanishingly small. Whether we choose to defend this assertion with foundational axioms, coherent and mutually supportive lines of evidence, acceptance of an infinite series of increasingly more subtle explanations, relaxing of the requirement for a firm deductive proof, probabilistic methods (such as Bayes Theorem), relying on the "Criteria Of Adequacy", or inference to the best explanation, rejecting the basic principle of uniformity and the inductive method which assumes it requires a far greater effort than accepting it. This would indicate that we should probably cultivate a tolerance for uncertainty (since we seem to be stuck with it), and an understanding that absolute certainty about phenomena in the world is probably not possible.

Uniformitarianism is the principle and belief that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present, and by extension, the same as those operating throughout the universe. This principle postulates that laws of nature that apply on Earth function the same throughout the universe. Its methodological significance can be summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past." This concept was introduced into modern thinking by Charles Lyell, James Hutton, and centuries before, by Avicenna and others. Although Lyell, Hutton, and Avicenna restricted their argument for uniformitarianism to geology, it quickly found application throughout all of natural philosophy. James Hutton wrote,

“If the stone, for example, which fell today, were to rise again tomorrow, there would be an end of natural philosophy, our principles would fail, and we would no longer investigate the rules of nature from our observations.”

This means that for us to be able to draw conclusions about the past, we must assume the invariance of the natural laws we see in operation in the present. Mere position in space or time cannot by themselves be relevant to whether some phenomenon occurs or not.

We start from the premise that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning that it is the same everywhere and of roughly the same distribution. At all times and everywhere, the laws of the universe behave exactly the same. Every observation ever made supports it, and none refute it. The light we see in our homes is the same as that we see from distant stars (as in Newton's “the light of our culinary fire and of the sun” from his Rules of Reasoning). We have measured light generated billions of light years away, and it is the same as the light generated by our refrigerator bulb. Countless observations support uniformity of the laws of nature across the universe. We see stars and galaxies just like our own as far as the universe stretches. We have recently discovered extra-solar planets with atmospheres circling some of those distant suns not dissimilar from our own. We see light, gravity, physics, and chemistry behave just as it does on Earth no matter where (or when) we look. I say “when” because much of what we see happening in distant space happened billions of years ago. Despite centuries of looking out into space since Galileo first viewed the moons of Jupiter, there is no evidence to support an argument against natural uniformity. Instead, there is overwhelming evidence in its favor. The standard caveats regarding physics at the boundaries of our experience (at the sub atomic level and at the galactic level) apply. The laws of nature at the human level do differ in kind from those we have discovered at these two extremes. But that is not an indictment of uniformity. Instead it is simply a widening of our understanding at these two scales. It is true that the behavior of quarks and leptons, and of dark matter and black holes, differ from what we experience in our daily lives. But we have strong reason to believe that these behaviors are retained at these levels no matter where (or when) in the universe we look.

Uniformitarianism was such a successful paradigm that, not surprisingly, it was eventually overplayed. It received such wide acceptance as a result of Hutton's influence that legitimate catastrophic theories such as volcanic eruptions, climatic changes, asteroid impacts causing mass extinctions, and of plate tectonics were rejected as being contrary to these principles. It got in the way of the acceptance of quantum physics, and erected barriers to the possibility of undiscovered dimensions and the possible infinity of time and space. These misapplications of the principle of Uniformity help us realize that it is a guideline, not a universal law. Uniformity was not “discovered” as the speed of light or the mass of a star can be discovered. It is a generally good assumption that allows us to make inferences about the parts of the universe we don't have immediate access to. But it is not always proper to employ it. It cannot be dogmatically and mindlessly applied.

Isotrophism and Homogeneity are concepts often paired with Uniformitarianism. They are the two legs of the Cosmological Principle which says that no matter where we look in the universe, we will see the same types and distributions of objects. Bound up in this principle is the idea that the shape, substance, and consistency of the universe in our local area is roughly the same as elsewhere. There is nothing priviledged about our frame of reference, as both Galelio and later Einstein showed. There is nothing unique about “here“ vs. “there“, no matter how distant. This is a truth that man has come more and more to realize. In pre-history, each tribe probably considered itself at the center of the universe (as they knew it). Among Earth's major historic cultures existed the symbol of the Axis Mundi, or “axis of the earth” which expressed their view that they inhabited a unique place at the hub of the universe. The Copernican revolution and expanding exploration of the Earth's surface literally widened Man's horizons, showing both that Europe was not at the center of civilization, and that our planet was not at the center of anything, but one of several planets (and a minor one, at that) in the solar system. Our universe grew even larger when Galileo's telescope showed there to be countless thousands of other stars like our own in our island universe, the Milky Way. In the 1700's Herschel added shape and texture to this fact by constructing the first accurate model of our galaxy. The next step came with Hubble's proof that Andromeda was not just another nebula, but a sister galaxy to our own. During the following years, many other galaxy's were discovered. It is currently estimated that there are about as many galaxies in the visible universe as there are stars within our own galaxy. Further, there may be much more to the universe than the mere 13.7 billion light years worth of stars that we are able to see – the universe may be expanding faster than its light can reach us.

As far as we can tell, the universe is both homogeneous (has similar structure everywhere) and isotrophic (has a similar appearance in all directions). On the small scale, we don't have homogenieity – the universe is full of “clumps”. Earth differs from Mars, our sun differs from other stars, the our galaxy differs from the surrounding magellenic clouds and the other galaxies in our local cluster. Our local cluster differs from other galactic clusters. However, on a large enough scale, even larger than this, you do get homogeniety. An analogy would be a sponge cake filled with raisens. If you stick a pin into the cake, you may pull out nothing, or you might get a raisen. On the scale of a pinhead, the cake is not homogeneous. But on the scale of a slice of cake, you always get roughly homegeneous slices with about the same amount of cake and raisins in each slice. On the scale a billion of light years, we observe homogeneous structure in the universe.

But for the purposes of understanding the universe we live in, there is no need to go that far to look for similar structure. The structure of the objects and phenomena that scientists study in their laboratories have the same structure, consistency, and substance of similar structures and phenomena we know exist outside the lab. There is no need to go to the ends of the universe to be able to make that assertion.

In the chapter, Isaac Newton's Rules Of Reasoning, two of Isaac Newton's four "Rules of Reasoning in Natural Philosophy" deal explicitly with the Principle of Uniformity.

1. To the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man, and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.
2. Qualities of bodies are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

So, along with Hume, Lyell, Hutton, and countless others, Newton advances this principle. Although impossible to prove, it is the only explanation that would allow our experiences in the universe to make sense. If every seemingly similar phenomenon in every region of the world was the result of completely different causes, our science, and our common sense would be completely useless and would not work. The fact that both do work is evidence enough that, as Newton says, "to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes".

5.2.8 Denying the consequent

There is a valid form of logical reasoning called “denying the consequent” (aka “modus tollens”) which can be used to show that induction is a valid and fully warranted methodology that we may rely upon. The form of the argument is:

If P, then Q.
Q is false.
Therefore P is false.

Following this logical form, the use of inference from real world experience is justified by the following sequence:

• If (P) induction from sense experience to make inferences about the world is invalid and unjustifiable, then (Q) science (which relies on inference) has no hope of working.


• However, (Q is false) science does work! There are countless examples of the progress that it has introduced, discoveries that it has made, and new technologies it has spawned. There are no counter examples to its success.


• Therefore, (P is false) our inferences from the real world ARE justified and valid.

Obviously if there was significant evidence in support of the claim that drawing conclusions through the scientific approach was invalid, then opponents would have a case. But such evidence is entirely absent, and there is overwhelming counter-evidence. Nor is there any competing theory as to why science tends to produce correct, useful, consistent, predictive, and informative results. Barring the existence of a competing explanation that accounts for its success (trickery by Satan to test our faith is one such untestable explanation, as is Solipsism), it’s plain, obvious, common sense to accept as fact that inference from the real world is valid. It would require agonizing logical contortions to explain away the falseness of statement “Q” above (i.e., “science has no hope of working”) using some other argument. The rule of Parsimony would indicate that the obvious explanation, above, is the correct one.

We should not become over excited by the fact that an established formal argument supports the use of induction. Language can be slippery, and we have seen earlier in this document a case where the cousin of modus tollens, modus ponens, was used to prove both that reality IS an illusion and later that reality IS NOT an illusion. So be careful with these simple techniques, they can be misused.

5.2.7 Foundationalism and Coherentism

After a slight divergence to study Postmoderism (a late addition to the 5.1 chapter which covered Faces of Idealism), we come back to the topic in section 5.2 - How Can we have Confidence in our Infererences.

Scientists attempt to justify their scientific assertions and interpretations by reference to other specific scientific statements and theories, which are usually more basic or fundamental statements. We have seen how this can lead to an infinite regression of assumptions and justifications, each of which must be proved. Hume, among others has written about this problem. To avoid this problem, the concept of Foundationalism was introduced, initially by Descartes, built up by Hume, and given modern form by Newton, Russell and others. This concept says that basic, self-evident, foundational beliefs exist and that these require no proof. These are said to be "properly basic". These, then, serve as the basis for derived, non-properly basic, beliefs.

Foundationalism may seem ultimately futile, because it says that at some point, you can’t have any more proof so you just have to accept some beliefs as being self-evident, or foundational. But if the alternatives are infinite regress or circular reasoning, some consider it the "least bad" route. In our normal lives we each intuitively accept some things as properly basic (such as the existence of the past, of other minds, of the external universe, our our own selves). No matter how much your system can explain, there will be something underlying your system that is unexplainable. This is true in geometry, calculus, and physics as much as in religion and mythology – that is the nature of explanation in all its contexts. This is called the Regress problem, and some people are uncomfortable with it. In the search for certainty, to have to resign after several deep iterations is unsatisfying. But the alternative (an infinity of ever more refined explanations) presents at least as many problems. Philosopher Paul Thaggard, no fan of Foundationalism or the need for absolute certainty, helps us put Foundationalism in perspective: "the foundational search for certainty is pointless, and that what matters is the growth of knowledge, not its foundations." Thaggard recommends Cohertism (discussed below) as a more satisfying alternative.

Foundationalists respond to the regress problem by claiming that these most basic beliefs do not themselves require justification by other beliefs. Such would be the case with Russell's Five Postulates, and Newton's Rules of Reasoning in Natural Philosophy, and Aristotle's Laws of Thought (all described elsewhere in this document). Sometimes, these “foundational” beliefs are characterized as beliefs of whose truth one is directly aware, or as beliefs that are self-justifying, or as beliefs that are infallible. According to one particularly permissive form of foundationalism, a belief may count as foundational, in the sense that it may be presumed true until defeating evidence appears, as long as the belief seems to its believer to be true (a "properly basic" belief). Others have argued that a belief is justified if it is based on perception or certain a priori considerations. In any case, it can appear to detractors as philosophical hand-waving.

In physics and the philosophy of science, it is beginning to appear that "Structural Realism" is gaining support in recent years. This theory states that underlying the most basic of objects - subatomic particles, there exists nothing but mathematical properties and structural relationships between properties that themselves are incapable of further reduction. They are the primitives from which the universe is constructed. They would represent the foundation (See Max Tegmark's, Our Mathematical Universe and James Ladyman, Understanding Philosophy of Science). In this view, our best theories in physics do not describe the actual nature of things, but the structure of reality. This allows retention of our structural understanding even as our theories change and even replace each other (for example, as Special Relativity replaces Galilean/Newtonian physics, or the Thermodynamic/Kinetic theory of heat replaces the Caloric theory, or Quantum Mechanics replaces Classical Mechanics). A crude statement of Epistemic structural Realism is the claim that all we "know" of reality is the structure of the relations between things and not the things themselves, and a corresponding crude statement of Ontic Structural Realism is the claim that there are no ‘things’ at all (at least at the lowest levels) and that structure and relationships between structures is all there is. This is the "state of the art" in Physics as far as Foundationalism goes.

Coherentism is a competing solution to the "infinite regress" problem of induction - and is also a way to avoid Foundationalism. This model of knowledge asserts that scientific statements can be said to be valid if they fit cleanly into an existing, coherent system of other known facts or beliefs. In other words, if they form part of a coherent whole (such as the existing body of science), they can be said to be correct. In this view, there is no requirement that scientific statements always be supported by more fundamental statements, instead they can be said to be provisionally “true” if they successfully serve their role in a network of mutually supporting scientific disciplines. Similarly, the fundamental statements that support more complex concepts in several disciplines are buttressed by their repeated successful application. For example, it is not possible to “prove” Newton's Law of Gravity:

Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

But it plays such a consistent and predictable role in so many situations that it is considered as true as any scientific principle can be (leaving relativity and quantum gravity aside...). Supporters of this way of looking at scientific statements include Willard Quine and E. O. Wilson who popularized another word for this concept: consilience. However, it was not Wilson who came up with the concept. William Whewell coined the term in 1840 when he said, "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs." Stated differently, Consilience is an assertion of the truth of the Theory in which is occurs. However, when a new observation conflicts with the existing body of knowledge, either the observation is incorrect, or the body of knowledge (e.g. existing theories) need to be modified. This is exactly what has happened with Newton's theory in the face of Einstein's discoveries. A useful model for thinking about this is to consider the "scientific edifice" of facts, hypotheses, and theories as less a rigid structure, but a network of relationships. If a new discovery fits well into the existing network, then it can be thought of as consistent with the view of the world contained in that network. If it fails to mesh with the network, then something is wrong - either the new discovery is wrong, or some of the "nodes" in the network need modfication to accomodate the new information. This way of assimilating or rejecting new information definitly conflicts with the Popperian method, which is to reject new information that fails experimental testing. As Duhem/Quine argued, maybe some of the auxilliary assumptions (related nodes in the network) are in need of attention.

Innumerable scientific observations from many disciplines support each other and provide confirmation and support for each other in very convincing ways. For example, Eddington's observations of light bending during a 1919 solar eclipse is considered the first evidence to provide solid support for Einstein's theory of General Relativity. This support didn't come from physics, per se, but from astronomy. Other astronomical phenomena (gravitational redshift of light) have provided equally compelling support.

Genetic research, discoveries in paleontology, in molecular biology and anatomy support and explain a mechanism for Darwin's theory of Evolution and are coherent with it. Plate tectonics explains how mountain ranges formed, which is coherent with much earlier discoveries of submarine fossils atop the peaks of our tallest mountain ranges and fossil similarities on the east coast of South America and west coast of Africa. Other coherent discoveries in geophysics involving magnetic field orientations in rocks on formerly adjacent plates have added additional support.

The chief criticism of foundationalism is that it can lead to the arbitrary or unjustified acceptance of certain basic beliefs. If we can all use personal preference to arrive at our unproven axioms, then strange and divergent belief systems can, will, and do emerge. The criticism of coherentism is that it is basically circular: A explains B, B explains C,and C explains A. A strong objection to coherentism is that it would be possible to have two sets of separately coherent data, that are internally consistent, but which conflict with each other. For example, Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers have gone to great extremes to create very details networks of facts and evidence to support their claims which they believe are interally consistent, but which disagree with the coherent set of scientific data. There is nothing within the definition of coherence that makes it impossible for two entirely different sets of beliefs to be internally coherent, but which conflict with each other.

The only other alternative that is generally suggested is to accept the infinite regress and move on. These three choices (foundationalism, coherentism, and infinite regress) bear a close resemblance to the three legs of Münchhausen's trilemma (so named because Baron Münchhausen supposedly pulled himself out of a swamp by his own hair). Simply put, the trilemma factors all possible proofs for a theory into three categories:

• The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (coherentism)
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof (infinite regress)
• The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (foundationalism)

5.1.1.9.3 Postmodernism and science

The Postmodernism argument runs that economic and technological conditions of our age have given rise to a decentralized, media-dominated society in which ideas are “simulacra” and only inter-referential representations, mere copies or echoes of each other, with no real original, stable or objective source for communication and meaning. Globalization, brought on by innovations in communication, manufacturing and transportation, is often cited as one force which has driven the decentralized modern life, creating a culturally pluralistic and interconnected global society lacking any single dominant center of political power, communication, or intellectual production. Scientific publications, whose conclusions change from year to year demonstrate (in their opinion) that there is no solid basis to scientific investigation - that scientists publish to boost their individual reputations and to secure grant money, not to advance a solid body of knowledge.

Given the antipathy of postmodernism to reason, logic, and science, what is the basis of its attack? Fundamentally, it consists of an attempt to reduce science to yet another belief system supported by cultural norms and biases – no better or worse than any other, and on a par with religion, political dogma, or historical tradition. The Postmodernists, radical skeptics of all knowledge, claim that science is a mythic narrative - one among many others. It is just one other way of looking at the world, subject to its own faith claims, with its own priesthood, just like a religion.

Susan Haack, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Miami, admits that it is true the science has some figures that are regarded with some deference, and it has its share of jargon which is practically impenetrable to the lay person. But it is not just one of many legitimate ways of figuring things out. Every day all of us engage in various kinds of empirical inquiry. You might try a variety of routes to get to work, finding some that get you there faster than others. What is it that makes one route superior? Fewer stop signs, faster speed limits, less traffic? The inquiry of science is continuous with this sort of ordinary every day inquiry. As Thomas Huxley wrote, science is more careful, it's more detailed, and it's more scrupulous. But even though its language is difficult to master, it is not impenetrable at its core. It is an extension of how we all, everyday, get through the world. It is continuous with an activity with which each of us is familiar: ordinary, everyday, empirical investigation. Ordinary common sense is continuous with science. The practice of science is not different in quality from the normal empirical activities we exercise every day during our normal interactions with the world, as we test the environment around us.

However, it should be emphasized that scientific knowledge does not always resemble common sense knowledge. In many ways, the presently accepted scientific theories of the world are very unlike what we think of as common sense beliefs about the world. On the contrary, they frequently defy common sense. The argument that the methods of science are like the methods of everyday life is not a claim about the body of currently accepted scientific theories, but is rather a claim about how scientific inquiries proceed. What distinguishes the sciences in this area is that they have developed an enormous array of techniques and tools for conducting their inquiries that make them much more powerful - mathematics, methodology, computers, statistics, measuring tools, instruments of observation that extend our unaided senses, and a centuries old expanding and self-correcting body of knowledge. Science has organizational methodologies that allow enormous amounts of information to be evaluated, cataloged, understood, and related to other knowledge. However, given all these advantages over commons sense, we should keep in mind the quote from Einstein, "science is a refinement of everyday thinking".

The postmodernist argument also misses the important point that science is an open system of inquiry that is subject by its very methods to outside falsification – even from external reality itself. Faith and dogma, on the other hand, are closed belief systems reliant upon authority or revelation. Stanley Fish, a Postmodernist apologist, argues,

“But what about reasons? Isn’t that what separates scientific faith from religious faith; one is supported by reasons, the other is irrational and supported by nothing but superstition? Not really.”

He asks this rhetorically, because the article in which this quote appears attempts to show that the reasons for trusting rationality and evidence are as arbitrary as the reasons for trusting any other non-rational explanatory system.

This perfectly expresses the core misunderstanding of Postmodernist criticism of science. Although there is plenty of “reason” to have confidence in the explanatory structure which is science, it is not this set of reasons which separates science from faith, but rather, it is methodology. Fish paints a picture of science as a game of inventing reasons to explain specific beliefs (the context of discovery) in something of a post hoc manner. Rather, science is much more about testing those reasons against reality and previously elaborated theories (the later justification which follows discovery). This second, often overlooked, aspect of science is utterly lacking from faith-based belief systems. The glamour is in the discovery, but the bulk of the work is in the painstaking justification, cross-checks, tests for consistency, and confirmation exercises that follow.

Postmodernists also counter scientific falsifiability by attempting to argue that science picks and chooses convenient sources for what it would consider adequate falsification, just as any other belief system would. For example, they might ask,

“Is there something that would falsify a religious faith in the same way that some physical discoveries would falsify a scientist’s belief in natural selection? As it is usually posed, the question imagines disconfirming evidence coming from outside the faith, be it science or religion. But a system of assumptions and protocols (and that is what a faith is) will recognize only evidence internal to its basic presuppositions. Asking that religious faith consider itself falsified by empirical evidence is as foolish as asking that natural selection tremble before the assertion of deity and design. Falsification, if it occurs, always occurs from the inside.”

This is consistent with Thomas Kuhn, who wrote that paradigms can only be judged from within the paradigm itself, not falsified from the outside. And when one paradigm shifts to another it happens for quirky and subjective (i.e. cultural) reasons. Kuhn and Fish miss the whole “later justification” thing that is central to scientific methodology. They miss that science itself is not a set of beliefs but a set of methods. Yes, culture plays its role as it does in every human endeavor. But it is not the driving force, and (in a free inquiry) science does not reach its conclusions to achieve social goals.

Two common Postmodernist critiques of science runs like this: “Because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, psychology, and other human studies, cannot be science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth of any sort. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples" (Spiro 1996). These objections are self contradictory. They purport to make some sorts of truthful statements about the world. Any argument that is based on the assertion that “Everything is subjective." runs into immediate problems. This idea is nonsensical. Anti-postmodernist Thomas Nagel has written, "for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim, including the claim that it is objectively false."

The imminent analytic philosopher, Willard V. O. Quine, maintains that scientific reality is indeed a somewhat arbitrary social construct. He says:

Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer . . . For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits.

Sokal and Bricmont, in their book Intellectual Impostures — Fashionable Nonsense, highlight the rising tide of cognitive relativism, the belief that there are no objective truths but only local beliefs whose truth value is relative to the social group or individual which holds the belief. They draw attention to the abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics, such as:

• Using scientific or pseudo scientific terminology without bothering much about what these words mean.


• Importing concepts from the natural sciences into the humanities without the slightest justification, and without providing any rationale for their use.


• Displaying superficial erudition by shamelessly throwing around technical terms where they are irrelevant, presumably to impress and intimidate the non-specialist reader.


• Manipulating words and phrases that are, in fact, meaningless. Self-assurance on topics far beyond the competence of the author and exploiting the prestige of science to give discourses a veneer of rigor.

Relying as it does on deconstruction, postmodern analysis is built on questioning the assumptions underlying any text, “deconstructing” its meaning. The problem is, it’s rare that a postmodernist critique of anything doesn’t consist of some of the densest, most impenetrable verbiage in existence. These sorts of arguments often claim that rationality, logic, and empiricism are nothing more than a hegemony of the dominant power structure being imposed upon the very definition of “data” or “reality,” the implication that it is the “dead white males” whose hegemony is being served. Ironically, it is Postmodernism itself which commits this intellectual crime in the most flagrant manner. As Steven Novella wrote,

Philosophers of science have largely moved beyond the postmodernist view; they now understand that this view was extreme and not an accurate description. In fact, the specific criticism is that this view confused the context of discovery, which is chaotic and culturally dependent, with the context of later justification. Regardless of how new ideas are generated in science, they are eventually subjected to systematic and rigorous observation, experimentation, and critical review. It is later justification that gives science its progressive nature

5.1.1.9.2 What's Wrong With Postmodernism?

The several examples of beneficial Postmodernism in art, architecture, literature, science, and anthropology given above show it to be a mind opening, cobweb clearing, refreshing way to look at old issues from new and creative directions. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with being creative, free from dogmatism, and open minded - with seeing things from new perspectives and thinking outside-of-the-box?

No doubt during the mid 20th century there was an excess of conformity and conventionalism. Of course the historic “certainty” of Western Civilization in their religions, history, political systems, art, and culture was highly chauvinistic and ill-informed. That supposed superiority was concluded in ignorance of the rich and varied alternatives from other parts of the world and other times in history. But the West had no monopoly on cultural bigotry – the same sort of provincial thinking was common to most isolated cultures, which describes most of the world up until just the last few decades (as we enter the Information Age). And it continues today - stories of racism, bigotry, violence, and condescension in countries with highly homogeneous and uniform populations in eastern Asia, the Middle East, northern Europe, and Africa abound. And America is not cured of this problem, either.

Clearly, taking off blinders to the cultural, historical, artistic, and philosophical riches available from other cultures and civilizations is a good thing. But Postmoderinsm has taken this good thing too far, and it has already begun to consume itself. What started as a movement to discover new and personal meaning, to broaden horizons, expand thinking, and to break stifling limitations on creativity became a license to reject all established meaning, value, and significance – a total repudiation and revolution against the history of acquired knowledge - destruction of the old, sweeping it away to introduce the new. In tune with the disposable society of the late 20th century which values "newness" as implicitly good and the what has gone on before as passe, Postmodernism struck a chord with the rebellious sentiments of the 1960’s and 70’s. The movement probably peaked around that time with the various social revolutions in France (1968) and the counter-culture movement in America (1960's and early 1970s). But it's heyday is over. As we roll into the 20th century, its shortcomings have overwhelmed it, and it has now retreated to a fringe position, still popular with various Liberation Movements, though. Criticisms of postmodernism include assertions that postmodernism is meaningless and purposely obscure and unintelligible. It immunizes itself from criticism through various techniques (such as redefining terms when convenient, or rejecting outside analysis as invalid, prima facie). Noam Chomsky wrote that because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge, it is without value. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals do not respond like people in other fields when asked,

...what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc?...If [these requests] can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: 'to the flames'.

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig said

The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that's not postmodernism; that's modernism!

Formal, academic critiques of postmodernism can also be found in works such as Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal.

The Postmodernist approach has helped writers, artists, and scientists break through barriers erected by tradition and established “wisdom” to go on to achieve radical and innovative breakthroughs. However, there is another saying of uncertain origin: “keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out”. This succinctly encapsulates the pitfall into which Postmodernism and Deconstruction have fallen. It is one thing to sweep out old, musty truisms, stodgy conventions, and outdated theories, but not at the expense of discarding all accumulated wisdom and knowledge to make room for some brave new world. This philosophical/literary system lacks a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle, while embodying extreme complexity and celebrating internal contradiction, ambiguity, and diversity for diversity's sake. To those first discovering it, it may seem either intoxicatingly liberating or, on the other extreme, a parody or satire of itself - sheer intellectual fraud.

Dr Alan Bloom, the author of The Closing of the American Mind, was a conservative Humanities scholar at the University of Chicago. During the 1960’s and 1970’s he became increasingly distressed over the direction in which the academic Left was taking Humanities studies at American universities. He believed that the Civil Rights movement, the Anti-War movement, the Women’s movement, and the Third-World movement, all of which help foster the concept of multiculturalism were leading to a paralyzing cultural relativism. The worst thing that a professor could do in academia during this era was to actually come to a conclusion about anything. Instead, what was required was to retain a perpetually open mind - so open, that, in fact, they become closed (thus the title of his book). This paradoxical statement meant that by remaining open to everything, by refusing to apply reason and logic to judge and discriminate among choices, such as whether Shakespeare was a greater writer than Agatha Christie, or indeed if Shakespeare could be judged superior to Australian Aborigine story tellers, then you become mired in indecision. This indecision is based on the belief that we have no right to judge one over the other, to use discrimination (a word which has been much maligned recently) to evaluate relative quality. When we do that, we deny the critical power of human reason. If the University System has any one purpose, it is expose young minds to ideas, and then show them how to use their wits, their intellects, available information, evidence, and human reason to come to informed decisions about things. He worried that this was no longer happening at universities because of the emerging view that all ideas were of equal value. Although Bloom was alarmed only at the erosion of the integrity of the Humanities, we see a similar relativistic attack on the sciences by Creationists and New Age proponents who claim that their brands of alternative science should have an equal footing with traditional science.

To them, western science is just one among many equally valid "narratives", not to be privileged in its competition with native traditions. They maintain science and reason, as a means to discovering the universe, is an arbitrary and uncompelling approach to understanding - no better or worse that any other epistemological preference.

Although considered a fairly recent philosophical movement, Postmodernism really began with Kant's assertion that we cannot know things in themselves and that objects of knowledge must conform to our faculties (i.e., categories) of mental representation. Postmodernism takes this further by claiming that all we know, and all we can know, is filtered by our political and socio-economic preconceptions. Unlike other branches of philosophy, whose proponents assiduously, but often vainly, strive to describe and illuminate, Postmodernism keeps its opponents off balance and disoriented by refusing to submit to definition - in fact rejecting the constraints of definition altogether. It protects itself from criticism by being especially slippery. Just as Solipsism erects logical barriers around itself that effectively stifle criticism while doing nothing to demonstrate its validity, Postmodernism creates similar obstacles by preemptively disarming all external attacks first by refusing to submit to characterization or description, and then by holding to the position that growth and change can only occur from the inside, not from the outside. In their view, critiques originating from outside its domain have no legitimacy. This strategy poisons the well against useful critique and blocks any possible rebuttals.

In their view, religion can criticize religion, science science, history history, and literature literature. No change comes from outside. Each person and each discipline must look into itself for meaning and to discover its problems and to determine its own future. By this standard, no disparagement originating from outside the structure of Postmodernism need be taken seriously. This argument may sound vaguely familiar, as it is the partial basis for the argument that in American society, “dead white males” have no authority to advise minorities, women, or anyone else on their social agendas, philosophies, or world views. This cliché derives from that origin. More than any other branch of philosophy or culture examined in this paper, Postmodernism has successfully framed itself in such vague and indescribable terms that any attempt at definition is rendered nearly impossible. There is practically no assertion one could make that could not be disputed endlessly by well-versed Postmodern apologists. They typically condemn classification and description of their discipline as excessively confining and stereotyping, as an attempt to usurp power by imposing definitions from outside rather than allow it to develop as it chooses and to define itself.

Although the movement’s current incarnation traces back only as far as the late 1960s with the publication of several books by Jacques Derrida in 1967, Michel Foucault in the 1970s, and several other writers of that time, it received a tremendous political and spiritual boost from the Afro-Asian Conference in April 1955 in Bandung, Indonesia. Hosted by President Sukarno, it launched the modern “Third World” movement, heralding the end of the dominance of the West, with its “rapacious capitalism” and overbearing colonial hegemony.

These non-aligned former colony countries did have a legitimate complaint against the West. It was the first time in history that they had been able to come together to express a unified front to the former colonial powers. They may have gone overboard, and made their point too strongly. But they had been victimized for centuries by the powers of Europe and America (England, Spain, Portugal, Holland, United State, Germany, and others). This forum allowed them to express their independence from the Great Powers, to reject the Cold War dichotomy that (mostly) the US and the USSR were pushing on them, and to begin to exert global influence for the first time.

Even given that the participants had good reason to protest their historic treatment, this conference trumpeted the beginning of their new world order, a pacific, non-aligned, supposedly virtuous utopia, free from the colonial past and from white, Western dominance. These ex-colonial states were inherently “righteous” by the fact of their history of victimization. This shared experience united the new non-aligned nations under the flag of oppression. As Modern Times author Paul Johnson satirically wrote, “a gathering of such states would be a senate of wisdom”. But its first order of business was to engineer the escape from the political, historical, artistic, and intellectual shadow of western culture. It would accomplish that in two strokes - by demolishing the icons of that culture, while simultaneously promoting its own. The traditions and culture of the West were roundly condemned, not for any lack of merit, but merely for being associated with a repugnant, oppressive past. This would not have been the first, nor the last time an individual or group adopted a belief system whose primary attractiveness was its tremendous potential to materially benefit its adherents. This movement ushered in an era of unprecedented influence and prestige for the previously dispossessed of nations. Perhaps the Postmodernist accusation that “all institutions, creations, artwork and moral values are expressions of a primal will to power; the enforcement of one person’s ideology on another” is more projection and description of its own value system than a fair analysis of the values and institutions of those it condemned.

But, aside from being intellectually dishonest and devious, are there any structural/logical problems with this philosophy? The writer, Pauline Rosenau, identified seven contradictions in Postmodernism:

1. Its anti-theoretical position is, itself, essentially a theoretical stand.


2. While Postmodernism stresses the irrational, instruments of reason are freely employed to advance its perspective.


3. The Postmodern prescription to focus on the marginal is itself an evaluative emphasis of precisely the sort that it otherwise attacks.


4. Postmodernism stress inter-textuality but often treats text in isolation when it is convenient.


5. By adamantly rejecting modern criteria for assessing theory, Postmodernists cannot argue that there are no valid criteria for judgment.


6. Postmodernism criticizes the inconsistency of modernism, but refuses to be held to norms of consistency itself.


7. Postmodernists contradict themselves by relinquishing truth claims in their own writings.

In short, if they held themselves and their theories up to the same analysis that they direct outwards, their theoretical framework would be in tatters.

There are countless examples of twisted logic and crazed rationales in modern society that all have a similar underlying essence of unreality. On one level they seem to not break the rules of logic, and at another level, their conclusions are seemingly insane. In George Orwell’s 1984 we have a compelling description of how the so-called Ministry of Truth which used “Newspeak” to brainwash the people of Oceania. The party slogans were: "War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength". Through crafty manipulation of language, throwing out conventional definitions and re-framing reality in line with the party view, outright lies became self-evident truths. This lexical legerdemain turns words on their heads, robbing text of meaning, equating sense and non-sense, undermines logic and reason itself as simply alternative narratives that we repeat to ourselves.

Postmodernists behave like the stereotypical unscrupulous lawyer trying to win the case: truth and justice aren’t the point; instead using any rhetorical tool or trick that works is the point. Sometimes contradictory lines of argument work, your audience’s desire to belong to the in-group can be played upon, or appearing absolutely authoritative works to camouflage a weak case. Sometimes condescension works. It relies on rhetoric rather than substance.

We can see this occur in current events: religious cults or other minority groups which have long been victimized by bigotry or racism, grab the opportunity when the tables turn, to become bigots and racists themselves, providing a rationale supported by their doctrine. However, a typical postmodernist justification which explains all this away is that it is impossible for a minority to be bigoted or racist, since these traits are expression of power, and minorities have no power (Education & Racism, National Education Association. 1973). This is modern Newspeak postmodernism par-excellance. This very argument is frequently used in modern culture, for example, by Troy Davis in his Whyaminotsurprised blog: “In other words, the very social construction of "race" itself was the act of White oppressors for the purpose of exploiting and dominating people of color...consequently, I (and I am not alone here) don't believe that it's possible for a person of color to be a racist.”

So, reason takes a backseat to the intent of the message. Foucault shared these sentiments, claiming “reason is the ultimate language of madness,” suggesting that nothing should constrain our beliefs and political preferences, not even logic or evidence. Frank Lentricchia, another left-wing theorist, said the postmodern movement “seeks not to find the foundation and conditions of truth, but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” And Stanley Fish has argued that theorizing and deconstruction “relieves me of the obligation to be right … and demands only that I be interesting.” There is a pattern here. The common goal is to simultaneously remove the supports of conventional wisdom by redefining truth and falsehood, right and wrong, reality and illusion, while also promoting themselves as the fresh arbiters of a new form of insight and authority. It is a bald power-play to enfranchise the previously powerless, to dethrone reason and replace it with a social subjectivism that, they believe, has suffered much reduced prestige at the hands of science, reason, and technology.

Mainstream Philosophy has largely abandoned Post Modernism. It was chic for a few decades, but now it considered a failure. It is one of many half-thought-out and inadequate attempts at new philosophical schools (the same is true of Ayn Rand's Objectivism). Post Modernism is not taken seriously by other philosophers, but is still practiced in niches where out-of-power groups and the academics who support them continue to try to wrest power from the dominant group. It is a thin philosophical veneer overlaying what would otherwise be a naked power play. For an example of how it is currently being expressed, see this Harvard Law Record article describing how "Critical Race Theory (CRT)" is justified by an appeal to "White Privilege" and "Institutional Racism". According to CRT, the current establishment can do nothing to defend itself because it is inherently biased and evil. It should just dissolve itself and give power to the non-white races. It uses a Postmodern defense of this agenda.

Noam Chomsky has argued that postmodernism is meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals do not respond like people in other fields when asked, "what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc.? If [these requests] can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: 'to the flames'."

Philosopher Daniel Dennett declared, "Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."