Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "
Citation needed.
On the other hand, refraining from condemning others when you have skeletons in your own closet is easy.
Engineers use an intuitive and pragmatic definition of truth that allows them to actually do things. Rationalists are more in the philosophy business.
For some values of "work". It's possible to argue in detail that predictive power actually doesn't entail correspondence to ultimate reality, for instance.
For instance, when you tell outsiders that you have wonderful answers to problems X, Y and Z, but you concede to people inside the tent that you actually don't.
That's not what I said.
There's no such thing as postmodernism and I'm not particularly in favour of it. My position is more about doing rationality right than not doing it all. If you critically apply rationality to itself, you end up with something a lot less elf confident and exclusionary than Bay Area rationalism.
Citing it is going to be difficult, even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says "That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism." I'm forced to site philosophers who are opposed to it because they seem to be the only ones willing to actually define it in a concise way. I'll just reference this essay by Dennett to start with.
I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to here.
... (read more)