How do I best deal with Postmodernist and their Bullsh*t?

[Professor_Fennec]

Having been along for the YouTube atheist revolution since the beginning when Thunderf00t, Aron Ra and the rest were destroying the arguments of Creationists and religion apologists, I've become well versed in debunking religious arguments.  But now I've come across this new animal called postmodernism.  These anti-skeptics are all over the place, even in academia, and they seem to be the dominant voices among the Atheist Plus and feminist communities. 

As if the cultural Marxism of A+ and Feminism wasn't bad enough, the added poison of postmodernism has built up such a strong mental fortress in the minds of its adherents that reaching these people seems all but impossible.  Having encountered them personally, I feel completely frustrated and dumbfounded that people like this actually exist, even more so that some even teach college level classes at universities around the world!  They are relativistic, believe in multiple truths (science is but one possible truth to them) and, just like Christian apologists, demand evidence that proves negatives.  Explaining something like the NULL hypothesis or burden of proof to them is like talking to a brick wall.  Instead, they value subjective experience as something just as valid, if not more so, then objective evidence. 

This is particularly problematic when talking about a postmodernist about gender vs. biological sex and transgenderism.  Postmodernists, who are almost always strict social constructionists of gender, think that asking why a person is transgendered is a meaningless question.  All that matters is how you feel about your gender and nothing else, because how you feel about yourself is "The Truth" that everybody else must accept.  This sounds all nice and warmhearted, but this completely robs transgendered people of valuable self knowledge and personal insight that a rational explanation might give them.  Yet, seeking out such an explanation for this phenomena is practically an insult to the postmodernist mindset, eliciting a very hostile reaction similar to how they react to any notion that women can take proactive steps to prevent rape.  Even Richard Dawkins is being called out as a "white male bigot" by postmodernists because he has challenged the postmodernist world view.  Some even go so far as to claim Logic and Science are patriarchal in nature, designed to repress women and minorities!  I don't even know what to call the fallacies they are making, because the level of absurdity they bring to the table is just that overwhelming.  Yet the multitudes of postmodernists expect to be taken seriously. 

I don't want to get hung up on gender issues, as this is only an example of their inexpiable irrationality.  The real problem of postmodernism runs much deeper, as it undermines the very foundation of the scientific method, naturalism and the philosophy of science.  I fear that postmodernism, because it is secular and therefore lacks the stigma of spirituality, could prove to be the dark horse that becomes an even more serious threat then religion ever could have been to human progress. 

People like Thunderf00t are waking up to this new threat, as I am waking up to it, but I don't think everybody fully realizes that it is postmodernist thinking (and cultural Marxism, to a lesser degree) that's behind it the nonsense flooding the Internet and academia.  Just look at what a cancer postmodernism has become to Feminism and the social sciences.  Do we this to spread to the rest of academia, perhaps even into the hard sciences?  I hope we all agree that the answer is a resounding "no!"  Should they have there way, I fear it would be every bit as cataclysmic as the self destruction of the French Enlightenment. 

So, where do we go from here?  What do we do about this new, more powerful threat?  I don't know, but I'm worried about the future of skepticism because of their anti-intellectual insanity. 

[dallen68]

First off, it would behoove you to accept the fact that some people aren't going to be reached, no matter what you say or how much evidence you present. As posted in a recent skeptic.org blog post, to these people, "extraordinary claims"="Anything that challenges my pre-existing beliefs" and "extraordinary evidence"= "anything that supports my pre-existing beliefs". Any evidence you may present which "contra-indicates my pre-existing beliefs" is, I would assume, dismissed out of hand, being non-extraordinary.

[MrBogosity]

First off, it would behoove you to accept the fact that some people aren't going to be reached, no matter what you say or how much evidence you present. As posted in a recent skeptic.org blog post, to these people, "extraordinary claims"="Anything that challenges my pre-existing beliefs" and "extraordinary evidence"= "anything that supports my pre-existing beliefs". Any evidence you may present which "contra-indicates my pre-existing beliefs" is, I would assume, dismissed out of hand, being non-extraordinary.

This is why I think everyone should be taught basic informal Bayesian inference. It discourages if not prevents people from doing precisely that, and being honest about prior probabilities.

[evensgrey]

The assumption that gender identity is purely a social construct is the entire(ly false) basis of Conversion 'Therapy'.  Have you tried challenging them based on the fact that they think Conversion 'Therapy' must be able to work?

[Travis Retriever]

This is why I think everyone should be taught basic informal Bayesian inference. It discourages if not prevents people from doing precisely that, and being honest about prior probabilities.

At the risk of derailing this thread, what's that Bayesian stuff?  I've heard you mention it before during a debate/argument with a creationist (or was it a statist?).

[MrBogosity]

At the risk of derailing this thread, what's that Bayesian stuff?  I've heard you mention it before during a debate/argument with a creationist (or was it a statist?).

It's a way of determining the probability of a hypothesis given the evidence. I talked about it a bit on the last podcast.

[dallen68]

At the risk of derailing this thread, what's that Bayesian stuff?  I've heard you mention it before during a debate/argument with a creationist (or was it a statist?).

Here's a link. http://www.bayesian-inference.com/bayesian You have to be good in math to get anything out of it, so it will be of limited benefit to me. However, you and others here might gain something from it.

And I think it was me, actually.

[MrBogosity]

You have to be good in math to get anything out of it, so it will be of limited benefit to me.

Informally it can be done without math, as long as you describe everything conceptually. A lot of this has already happened: p(H) just means "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," for example.

[Professor_Fennec]

First off, it would behoove you to accept the fact that some people aren't going to be reached, no matter what you say or how much evidence you present. As posted in a recent skeptic.org blog post, to these people, "extraordinary claims"="Anything that challenges my pre-existing beliefs" and "extraordinary evidence"= "anything that supports my pre-existing beliefs". Any evidence you may present which "contra-indicates my pre-existing beliefs" is, I would assume, dismissed out of hand, being non-extraordinary.

I agree, it isn't an easy task worth doing to deconvert people from postmodernism.  What I am interested in is how do we attack postmodernism itself as an invasive ideology.  Its spreading like kudzu and needs to be contained. 

How do we attack its absurdities and how do we use its absurdities to ridicule it?

[nilecroc]

I agree, it isn't an easy task worth doing to deconvert people from postmodernism.  What I am interested in is how do we attack postmodernism itself as an invasive ideology.  Its spreading like kudzu and needs to be contained. 

How do we attack its absurdities and how do we use its absurdities to ridicule it?

Reducto ad Absurdem. If there is no objective reality, then claim that you are really a giant pikachu with reality warping powers, if they deny said claim, then they are claiming to have knowledge of objective reality, thus invalidating their own position.

[Ibrahim90]

Reducto ad Absurdem. If there is no objective reality, then claim that you are really a giant pikachu with reality warping powers, if they deny said claim, then they are claiming to have knowledge of objective reality, thus invalidating their own position.

bah! tell that to stab themselves in the belly, and add that it won't hurt. when they object, then they admit to an objective reality: stabbing yourself will hurt (in more ways than one). If they don't, then they're idiots, and won the Darwin award.

[tnu]

I seem to remember Shane and I dealing with one of these types on his channel a while back. He claimed basically "There are no absolute truths except for mathematics." I couldn't help but notice somethign was off with that claim.

[dallen68]

As far as the claim "there are no absolute truths, except mathematics", I guess it would be dependent on which context they're talking about. What I mean is, there's that persons perception of truth, which is unique to that individual, subject to his understanding, values, etc., which may or may not be accurate.

Then there's the theory of truth, which is basically that which the consensus of individuals in a particular society or whatever generally accept as true. This is, of course, subject to the values, knowledge, etc. of the group involved. Absent a really convincing argument, if your perception of reality does not match the current theory of reality, people think your a woo.

Lastly, there's the reality of truth, which is true regardless of any current theories or perceptions of truth. If things go right, the theory of truth is adjusted periodically to reflect increases in understanding of the reality of truth.

[Professor_Fennec]

Here is a good example of a postmodernist "deconstruction" of Thunderf00t's more recent video.  Even though Thunderf00t is a statist, I have to appreciate him for his attack on postmodernist thinking, even though it will earn him a lot of Feminism enemies. 

[yt]S8TBz5OCxYI[/yt]

We can easily see, in this video, that postmodernist deconstruction is bogus.  Rather then based their deconstruction on rationalism (looking for logical fallacies) and objective, empirical evidence, they use their perceptions of ethics and, in this case, arguments from ridicule, and guilt by association (a Red herring fallacy). 

As it is stated in the video, Thunderf00t says stuff that sounds vaguely similar to that of convicted rapists (in her opinion).  Therefore, Thunderf00t's argument is invalid.  This is clearly an ad hominem via a guilt by association fallacy. 

What typical pseudo-intellectual rubbish from a typical feminist.  I wish postmodernism would just die, and it would if its followers were not such magical thinking fanatics who feel intensely threatened by critical ideas from out-group members. 

Also, I do not believe Thunderf00t is an MRA and it should be noted to Feminists that its many critics are NOT part of Men's Rights Activism, but are simply rationalists giving a RATIONAL critique of Feminism in general.  Richard Dawkins has done the same, as have many other rationalists who strike at the very heart of Feminism's postmodernist irrationality. 

And why not?  If postmodern Feminists are going to insist upon calling the maximum speed of light "patriarchal" and DNA "fascist", they deserve to be treated every bit as harshly and critically as any Creationist or religious apologist, if not more so. 

Then again we are "privileged white cis-gendered males" and just "don't get it" simply because of our identity, sex and skin color.  Because, you know, those things about us that matter the least are what matter to them the most.