Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

by Paul R. Gross

With the emergence of "cultural studies" and the blurring of once-clear academic boundaries, scholars are turning to subjects far outside their traditional disciplines and areas of expertise. In Higher Superstition scientists Paul Gross and Norman Levitt raise serious questions about the growing criticism of science by humanists and social scientists on the "academic left." This paperback edition of Higher Superstition includes a new afterword by the authors.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Education, Sociology, Academia

350 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1994

Reviews

[Philip of Macedon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Imagine you held a belief so fervently that it superseded everything else in your life, came above every other value, principle, or claim that you were exposed to, for this almighty worldview and belief system was of utmost importance. And imagine that the subject of your unyielding faith was, unfortunately, built upon faulty ideas, flawed understanding, irrational concepts. And imagine, then, that sometime around the 17th century, a highly rational, reasoned, and logical system of thought had been developed upon which so many historically and technologically significant achievements had been not only made possible, but had been brought into reality. And imagine this proven mode of thought that would later be attributed to the period known as the Enlightenment flew in the face of your sacred belief system. You want your belief to be treated not only as valid, but as substantially true and important, and you want it to be seen as the totalizing intellectual power that you imagine it is. How can this be done if the overwhelmingly successful system of thought, which has proven itself over many centuries, immediately discredits the greater part of your belief system? Simple. Devote all your intellectual energy to trying to discredit, disavow, disengage, and most importantly, deconstruct the entire Enlightenment accomplishment, and convince impressionable youths that your superstition has merit precisely because of the reasons Western thought proclaims it does not.

I could be talking about any number of things, from religious fundamentalism to New Ageism. I'm talking about postmodernism and its related subjects of relativism, subjectivism, deconstruction, post-colonialism, and a dozen other silly little things, for it has been the only trendy form of public "intellectualism" to attempt to tackle reason, reality, rationality, and logic at an academic level. And despite the tenure of its many professors and the seemingly infinite list of publications such thought has produced, and the unfortunate fashionable winds that have been set into motion generations later, it has been an utter failure.

Gross and Levitt have written a devastating tome of sharp, surgically precise, and sometimes even poetic intelligence and examination, aimed right at the segment of the Academic Left responsible for the spread of feeble-minded ideas like postmodernism. For the first two thirds of the book, almost every page, maybe almost every paragraph, is a quotable chunk of rational thinking that fairly sets up the prevailing vogue ideas in postmodernism, complete with their champions, and lays it to waste spectacularly, elegantly, and thoroughly. I don't have the time to give examples of all the laying to waste Gross and Levitt do, it is far too comprehensive and complete for me to attempt. But they take on Marxism, Feminism, Afrocentrism, Cultural Studies, and a variety of other areas of study I hesitate to call 'disciplines'. And on this note, Gross and Levitt do a wonderful job toward the end of the book examining the vast differences between scientific scholarship, and the hand-wavy, free-pass, low-rigor excuse for scholarship that passes in many of the humanities.

The book isn't trying to be a political battleground, and certainly isn't a bastion of conservative thought like some say (Levitt is an avowed leftist). It is an honest look at a real epidemic. For so long the misconception has been that the right is the only side of the political spectrum capable of gross negligence and anti-scientific thinking. Granted, any honest person has long understood this is wrong, but many entertain it as truth. The fact of the matter is that the left is just as filled with hocus pocus nonsense and superstitious faith-healing as the right, and it's nice that a competent, engaging, and thorough book has been written on it.

As I read the book, there were many moments where I had just finished reading a colossal segment that logically and thoroughly tore apart a popular figment of postmodernist ideation, and I paused and reflected and made sure I would remember the text I had just read so that I could talk about it in my review. But those moments became so frequent that by now, having finished the book, it is impossible to go back to any standout paragraph or page or chapter or section and discuss it at length. I could do this, but picking those segments to discuss would be tiresome, as there are so many, all deserving of being shared and examined and discussed openly.

Science does not work the way many Humanities academics believe it does, nor does it posit the kinds of things so many are eager to attribute to it. Forgive me for being vague and not including all the bizarre details of the postmodern lunacies that were cracked open and burned up within this book, that is too long a process. Many of these wacky things I have experienced in my own life, some of which I continue to see often. Despite there being a few points of disagreement between myself and the authors, and a period where I felt that, unlike the bulk of the rest of the book, they failed to provide a thoughtful and well reasoned response to a philosophical question that was central to an issue they briefly touched on (animal rights, animal testing), overall the book was a grand accomplishment.

You will read strange criticisms of the book right here on Goodreads, and this is perplexing. Perplexing because if one were so eager to discredit a book, it would seem they'd want to read it first to be sure that their criticisms were valid. Alas, what we see is that all criticisms seem to come from people who haven't read the book, who think Gross and Levitt are avowed Right Wing Conservatives trying hard to preserve the Holy Conservative Doctrine of Science (strange to think that someone on the Right would have to defend science from someone on the Left, but this is the world painted by critics). It should be no surprise that the critics are not themselves scientists, knowledgeable about what they read, or even familiar with the pages of Higher Superstition. It seems almost too perfect that these criticisms come from relativists, subjectivists, and those susceptible to Higher Superstition. The harshest criticisms of this book are, in essence, like a boatload of religious fundamentalists throwing rocks at the people who dare criticize their ancient holy texts.

It need also be made abundantly clear how incompatible subjectivism and relativism are with science and reason, and how postmodernism is the least equipped intellectual enterprise to try to tackle such matters. This is made clear in this book, as well as other books, like Fashionable Nonsense. But unlike Fashionable Nonsense, by Sokal and Bricmont, another fantastic read, Higher Superstition gets to the guts of the matter, and takes a stronger approach to addressing the wrongmindedness of trendy anti-intellectuals. Where Sokal and Bricmont merely point and laugh, and make a few useful comments, Gross and Levitt engage fully with the ideas presented, and examine them as scientists should, with all the scrutiny and rigor that Humanities Scholars have never been subject to in their own departments. Make no mistake, though. Gross and Levitt are not saying that all the humanities as a monolithic entity are guilty of this postmodern nonsense. Many in the "academic left", in humanities disciplines, are equally hostile to the strange positions of postmodernism, and G&L make this clear time and time again. So it has confused me to see so many reviewers, including professors at Caltech and Worcester Polytechnic Institute among them, making claims to the contrary. G&L do not misrepresent the entire academic left, nor the humanities. Repeatedly they remark how important the humanities are in order for us to live happy and fulfilling lives as parts of civilization.

Gross and Levitt also suggest that external examinations of science are all well and good, and should be encouraged, but should be conducted by people who know what science is, how it works. Not by people who trumpet loudly their scientific ignorance as though it is a badge to be worn while on Science-Busting duty. This is not a far fetched concept, and in fact seems only sensible.

I could really go on about how grand this book is, what an excellent job it does of crushing bad ideas by intellectually lazy, dishonest, and irresponsible people, or how the politically charged reviewers have taken offense at the book's thesis and proclaimed in the highest of holy tones that only the right is capable of flagrant disregard of reality. Oh, sad dumb world, with such people in it. But I won't go on. Too many of the insubstantial commentaries on this book ironically prove Gross and Levitt right, or at the very least provide ample evidence as to why one should never take second or third hand accounts of someone else's work or words too seriously. Which is why I highly recommend this book, not as a thing you toss around in anger and skim only to find reasons to disagree because it purports to discredit your sacred politics, but as a thing to actually read, reflect upon, and consider.

An interesting part in Higher Superstition appeared toward the end, with a compelling explanation as to why this kind of academic nonsense has been allowed to flourish for so long, and the explanation given makes more sense than any other I've seen. The scholarly standards in the realm of postmodernism are abhorrently low, so low in fact that it is a constant surprise to intelligent people that such garbage is spouted openly and freely and excitedly in academic circles, by supposed scholars. So it is not by any sort of scholarly depth or validity that these disciplines continue to exist. It is largely because the underlying political or social convictions of the academic left are of course shared by many outside of the humanities, by many within science and other fields. I myself share plenty of similar ground, to an extent. So when your underlying political currents run parallel to those of the people making wild statements based on fiction and imagination, you are less inclined to call them out or to submit their ideas to the same scrutiny you would submit other ideas to. You, and others, will see your challenging of bullshit as a challenge to all of the entailed assumptions and political values, many of which you might hold. Best not disturb the water of sacred ideation. This is a reasonable explanation, and takes into account human nature and tribalism, which can prevent many a decent and honest person from being fully intellectually invested and honest.

I won't spend any more time explaining how incapable I am of elaborating on this book. It is great, it is astute, it is fair, it is honest, it is a much needed spear in the throat of postmodernist trash, an enlightened fist in the impotent face of the academic left. It should be noted that the illiberal Marxist/feminist/cultural constructivist wildness G&L dissect (in 1994) has become out of control and rampant merely 20 years later, and has a flourishing contingent of anti-intellectual 20-somethings championing its weak ideas. This book is needed now more than it was during its original publication.

[DoctorM · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another dreary attack by physics cultists on the humanities. Gross wants to defend "science", and though the enemies of science these days are on the Right--- climate change deniers, anti-evolutionists ---his targets are postmodernist and post-structuralist thinkers of the "academic Left". He seems to be terrified of studies that look at science in a cultural context, or of critical theory that asks who gets to define and impose "knowledge" in society. Any discipline that asks simple humanities-oriented questions--- who gets to decide what science is for? who decides what kinds of knowledge we think are valuable? why do we do science this particular way? ---is immediately derided as "soft" and as anti-science. Gross wants to take science out of culture and politics and social structures and make it into a kind of pure method where no outside influences ever shape what scientists look for, see, or agree to find acceptable. Call this one more rant by the physics cultists against the idea that knowledge might not be self-evident or that there may not be One Right Answer yielded by hard science that everyone should instantly accept.

[Dovie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm pulled in two quite different directions by this book, so any endorsement comes with significant reservations. First, I must say that I largely agree with the primary thesis of this book- postmodernists, cultural constructivists, radical environmentalists, and other ideological groups in academia have put forth distressing, inaccurate, and poorly informed critiques of science or else have co-opted science when it conveniently supports an agenda and then deny the legitimacy of science when it fails to conform to politics. Postmodernists and cultural constructivists enjoy painting science as little more than a competing ideology or interpretive discourse, with no special claim to truth. Obviously, this is nonsense. Radical environmentalists eagerly circulate environmental doomsday predictions when science produces them, but they cry foul when further study disconfirms initial fears. It's not difficult to see how this is foolish.
However, though I endorse the thesis of the book, I very much dislike the tone and I question some of the assumptions woven throughout this argument. First, the book assumes (in absence of all but anecdotal evidence) that these kinds of antiscience views are ubiquitous among the humanities- not merely that these views are taught as part of the history of the humanities, but that humanists in general fully endorse these views with gusto. The authors of this book attribute an improbable credulity to anyone working in humanistic disciplines. From my experience, though postmodernists like Derrida are frequently mentioned in the humanities, few working scholars would lend an unqualified stamp of approval to these philosophies. Granted, my experience is also anecdotal- but it seems that the charitable impulse would lead one to grant colleagues the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming that the their peers are all fools, for lack of a better word.
Also, despite the fact that they criticize many of their colleagues for entertaining millenarian delusions, they put forth a series of increasingly dreadful scenarios that *might* result if postmodernists et al have their way. For example, the authors claim that continued quarrels with science may eventually lead science to secede from academia altogether. Additionally they claim that if this happened, scientists would be able to competently teach the humanities, but the humanists would be helpless if scientists were to boycott academia. This seems naively arrogant. A great many philosophers of science would be competent instructors of lower level college science and mathematics courses, though they might struggle with higher levels courses. However, the same would be true of most scientists- they could competently instruct lower level courses in the humanities, but I'd imagine they'd lack enough specific knowledge to teach higher level courses, and the only reason why the authors assume they are omnicompetent is because they do not respect their peers, nor do they respect the fields that they are eager to criticize. Scientists are not immune to ignorance.
Most irritatingly, the authors bemoan the woeful state of science education and science literacy in the American general public, but there's empirical reason to dispute this. According to the PISA, American students are not the best science students in the world, but they're pretty far from being the worst and our level of achievement has remained pretty stable. In 2012, the average score in science literacy for US students was 497 (OECD average = 501), but we scored above Norway (495), Sweden (485), and Iceland (478). Pew and Gallup polls have certainly revealed deficits in adult science literacy, but there are comparable deficits throughout the developed world. In other words, there's nothing that suggests that the U.S. is a particularly egregious offender against science.
Finally, they scarcely bother with offering genuine counterevidence against their opponents. They're satisfied to merely explain the argument, using the briefest paraphrase or selecting a single paragraph as representative of a lengthy body of work, and then declare it to be balderdash. If I didn't already agree with the authors, I would hardly be persuaded to embrace their position. It's absolutely correct for the authors to point out that an assertion is not evidence, but neither is a counter-assertion.
Overall, the book highlights some interesting issues in contemporary humanist theorizing, but it does so in a high-handed, hypocritical, and arrogant way. The task the authors undertake is a worthy one, but it requires a sense of fairness that's lacking here.

[Dfordoom · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt reveals the terrifying irrationality of the left-wing elites that control the universities and the bullying tactics they use to enforce political correctness.

Silly French intellectual fads such as postmodernism have of course done much of the damage and Gross and Levitt have a good deal of fun demolishing thier follies. They were also among the first to draw attention to the lies being told on the subject of global warming.

[Simona B · Rating 4 out of 5]

A delightful, if frankly frightening, dose of sanity. I say this as someone with leftist sympathies and with extensive training in literary studies: as such, I'm part of the problem in academia that Gross and Levitt identify with such directness -- although I hasten to specify that I've happily tried (successfully, I dare believe) to steer clear of the methodological misguidedness and undue politicization that the authors denounce, because I've always (unconsciously in the past, and consciously since I've begun researching these problems) shared the fundamental reservations they express in this book. It is only a reasonable expectation of good academic practice to expect that people who write about science without being professionally trained scientists would strive to learn about and understand their subject matter (rather than boast of being ignorant about it), without purporting nonsensical methodological revolutions that have nothing to do with actual scientific work and all to do with their own political agendas. Simple as that.

From a historical perspective, it's surprising, as well as disquieting, to note that the book might as well have been written yesterday, so little the situation has changed -- if anything, I'd say that it has worsened.

The work that the authors quote and criticize mostly falls in the categories of sociology and science studies, and I would have loved to see more engagement with literary or art studies specifically (since Gross and Levitt mention quite a few times, not wrongly, English departments as central hotbeds of the anti-scientism and anti-rationalism so widespread in the humanities, and since as someone who works in that field this is where my interest obviously lies), but I understand that this would have required knowledge not just of secondary but also of primary materials that it would be unreasonable to demand of the authors when their point, and their ability to engage intelligently with subjects that are not their professional expertise, were perfectly demonstrated without these additions.

[SueSue · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a science geek (earned a BS in environmental science back in the 80s) who's now working on an English degree (so as to better communicate important science concepts!) I can say for certain that the "academic left" has indeed veered way out of their lane to wage war on science.
This book is SO necessary, but sadly, the people who really need it will likely never read it. It's a bit dense and verbose, short on succinct summations of what are really some very simple concepts (hence the 4 stars)
Targeted audience is those working in and teaching the hard sciences, and I just wish it were more accessible for a general audience.
Also wish I'd read it BEFORE trying to debate a classmate in my "Rhetoric in Professional Communities" class on whether or not GRAVITY is a social construct. He insisted gravity only exists because we invented the word and the concept. So instead of asking him to come take a flying leap off the roof of my house (which I did), I'd have been better served by asking him how many physics classes he'd taken in order to arrive at such a conclusion.
The kicker in this debate was that the professor actually sided with the anti-gravitor. Silly me for assuming my class was being led by someone who, ya know, wasn't a crackpot.
But this postmodern nonsense is apparently going on all over the place.
Parents paying those tuition bills, take note! And please, for the love of all we hold dear, talk to your kids about science.
Before somebody else does.

[Daniel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science by Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt (1943 – 2009), 1994 (first edition), 1998 (second edition).

This is a difficult book to rate. On the one hand, I agree with most of the book's doctrinal payload; namely, that the anti-science of particular academics, imperfectly characterized as "the academic left," is embarrassing to scientifically informed people. On the other hand, the book flirts in places with its own varieties of science denial, staking out some positions on the topics of human intelligence and climate change that have aged dreadfully in the 27 years since the first edition. Man-made climate change and its industry-funded denial are in particular shaping up to be vastly more consequential (and deadly) than any of the gaffes and errors of postmodernism / poststructuralism / cultural constructivism / political correctness that are the book's primary targets. Given this lethal shortcoming I cannot rate the book above two stars, regardless of its other merits. This could be fixed with a third edition, but that seems unlikely given that one of the authors died in 2009.

Another defect is the ponderous writing style, deducting another star. While Gross and Levitt have much to say, the reader must work harder than necessary to grasp it. Other reviewers seem to hint at this by saying the book is "too long." I don't think a book can ever be too long, only too poorly written. The book feels longer than books twice its size from competent writers (or writers with competent editors). Another hint is that some reviewers seem to have come away with incorrect perceptions of the book's content, such as to label the authors "conservative." (At least one is decidedly not.) Reading comprehension is a function of two things: a reader's ability at reading, and an author's ability at writing. Gross and Levitt write as if they either never heard of the "plain language" movement, or they consciously reject its principles. The irony (as other reviewers point out) is that they deride their postmodernist targets for verbal excess of their own. To understand the problem with this book's style, read books such as: Oxford Guide to Plain English and Writing In Plain English. Then you will know how much easier this book could be to read.

The main style sins of the book are overly complex sentences and obscure vocabulary. Gross and Levitt are not the only writers who force me to a dictionary. But they do it more than most. Annoyingly, in most instances where I had to look up a word, or just pause to think about it, a familiar synonym is available and works as well. The less familiar word consumes the reader's short-term memory and interrupts reading flow. Now, I have more than the average person's tolerance for obscure words; I even read books about them, such as The Big Book of Words You Should Know: Over 3,000 Words Every Person Should be Able to Use. But I'd rather learn obscure words by reading about them in a glossary, not by tripping over them in a book that is nominally about something else.

Here is a sample of "SAT words" (i.e. words rarely seen outside a standardized test) that lard the book - just those starting with the letter "a". If you can instantly define all of these, then congratulations; you are a rare breed of cat. For most people, I suspect many of these words are only obstacles.

abnegation (a denial; a renunciation); abrogate (abolish); adumbrate (report or represent in outline); adventitious (unplanned); alarum (alarm); amour propre (feelings of excessive pride); animadversion (strong criticism); antinomian (opposed to or denying the fixed meaning or universal applicability of moral law); aporia (puzzle); approbation (praise); asseveration (emphatic assertion); assonance (rough similarity; approximate agreement); au courant (informed on current affairs; up-to-date); auspicate (to begin or inaugurate with a ceremony intended to bring good luck); auto-da-fé (public announcement of the sentences imposed by the Inquisition; the public execution of those sentences by secular authorities, especially by burning at the stake.)

The rest of the alphabet is equally interesting (I kept a list and could post it if anyone is interested). Imagine someone shoving all of that thesaurus-flexing into a TED talk. Even though a TED audience is likely more literate than average, not many people speak this way. Especially not if they want to be heard by more than 0.1% of the population.

I did learn one word that I may actually use: Micawber (and Micawberism), after the fictional character Wilkins Micawber created by Charles Dickens; an eternal optimist. It's a handy term for people who dismiss risks such as climate change or resource depletion with the belief that "something will turn up" - such as perhaps Elon Musk letting us trade our wrecked Earth for a Martian paradise. (How Musk will stop the same people who wrecked Earth from wrecking their next home isn't obvious to me.) However, even in my sizable collection of environmental books I found only one other instance of Micawber - and that book thoughtfully defines the obscure term inline, unlike Gross and Levitt who expect readers to know their Dickens.

To satisfy Goodreads' review length limit I continue this review in the comments below. Since Goodreads will not let me insert links to outside sites in the comments, here are some links that I cite below, about two of the industry-funded climate science deniers cited favorably, repeatedly, and regrettably by Gross and Levitt:

Michael Fumento - Wikipedia article (the COVID-19 section in the article quotes Fumento repeatedly dismissing pandemic risk in the early days; that hasn't aged well now that 700,000 Americans have died).
Theel, Shauna (12/05/13). "What Does The Guy Who Wrote The Myth Of Heterosexual AIDS Think About Climate Science? NY Post Investigates". "Like many pseudo-scientific “experts” on climate change, Fumento previously downplayed the dangers of cigarettes while receiving money from the tobacco industry."

Patrick J. Michaels - Wikipedia article, describes his climate change denialism and fossil fuel industry funding sources.
Skeptical Science links:
Climate Misinformation by Source: Patrick Michaels
Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Favourite climate myths by Patrick Michaels

[Emanuel Landeholm · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really good book. Academia is really full of crap these days. Case in point: quackademic medicine. So called "alternative" medicine "taught" by reputable (?) medical institutions. ( http://doctorrw.blogspot.com/2008/01/... ) There are pockets of real science being done here and there but the rest of it is all sell out, fads and ideology. And that's coming from a dyed in the wool lefty, mind you!

[Andres Sanchez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Necesario si uno quiere entender cómo "disciplinas" del calibre de los "estudios" "culturales" (que no son ni una cosa ni la otra) han contaminado y prostituido el discurso científico, y cómo la ciencia trata de resistir este ataque que, en aras de ser más correcto, resulta ser dañino y peligroso para la ciencia y la civilización.

[Max Nova · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the hardest I've laughed for any book in my 2017 reading theme. "Higher Superstition" is a wickedly perceptive takedown of the absurdities of the "academic postmodern left" and their "perspectivist" critique of science. Gross and Levitt defend the epistemological integrity of science from the relativist onslaught with a biting wit and a cavalier disregard for political correctness. The book is a useful conservative counterbalance to Otto's generally liberal "The War on Science".

Originally published in 1994, this book just pre-dates Harold Bloom's equally hilarious and unapologetic "The Western Canon". Similar in conservative approach and acidic tone, both works take on "The School of Resentment" and its attack on the foundations of Western culture and civilization. On the menu for evisceration are "Marxists, feminists, Afro-centrists, and relativists" (and "ecotopians" for good measure). I suspect that neither book could find a publisher courageous enough to publish it today.

The core argument of the book is that postmodern critiques that treat science as "just another self-referential discursive community" fail to appreciate the unique, self-correcting relationship that science has with reality. Gross and Levitt do a remarkably good job surveying the giants of the philosophy of science - from Kuhn and Feyerabend to Latour and Shapin. I found his refutation of relativism compelling and his no-holds-barred demolition of leftist misinterpretations of chaos theory to be satisfyingly brutal.

Speaking of brutality, here's a list of some of the sickest burns in the book:

* "To put the matter brutally, science works."
* "What Hayles does is not analysis. It is name-dropping."
* "This is exhilarating: it is radicalism without risk."
* "Wishful thinking is the customary name for this such “analysis.”"
* "There is not masculinist or feminist science, just good and bad science."
* "Apocalyptic movements don’t do honest and comprehensive cost/benefit analyses."
* "the only book foretelling the end of the world that routinely advertises next year’s edition."
* "Science is, above all else, a reality-driven enterprise."
* "In sum, we are accusing a powerful faction in modern academic life of intellectual dereliction."
* "One can’t assume, in these matters, that possession of an advanced degree or a professorship equates to intellectual legitimacy."

The book is full of quotes like these. They makes the text a joy to read, but also underscore how bitter discourse in the academy has become. Gross and Levitt echo Bloom by highlighting this resentment, "It is impossible to understand fully the academic left’s attack on science without taking into account how much resentment is embodied in it." They argue that the humanities envy the increasing funding and prestige of science departments, and thus they have leveled their constructivist weapons upon them. Seems a bit too... Freudian?

My big takeaway was that much of the conflict between the left and science comes down to a matter of perspectivism:

Perspectivism on the left is the true legacy of the activism of the 1960s and early 1970s, a time when it was assumed that the oppressed are endowed with uniquely privileged insights, and that the intellectual, as well as moral authority of victims is beyond challenge

Overall, this is a cranky but useful read. It was certainly quite helpful in helping me frame some current scientific controversies in their recent-historical context.

A word of warning: because the authors attempt to engage with contemporary postmodern academic literature, the books is awash in complex, confusing vocabulary ("hermeneutics" comes up with astonishing frequency). In general, the vocabulary level of this book is quite high - I often found myself having to look words up. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised - after all, we're neck-deep in epistemology now.

Full review and highlights at https://books.max-nova.com/higher-superstition/

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

Two smug conservatives go yah boo sucks at leftie straw men. That's not quite an accurate summary of this book, but it conjures up perfectly my feelings all the while I was reading it: revulsion at the abominably orotund and self-congratulatory writing style, profound irritation that -- despite a half-hearted attempt in the introductory pages to claim non-partisanship -- the authors were framing their very justified criticisms of sloppy, antiscientific thinking as a political left-right battle. A full 100% of Republican Senate/House candidates this Fall reject the science of climate change. The leaders of the campaigns against the science linking tobacco smoke to disease, against the science showing the depletion of the ozone layer, against the science demonstrating the reality of evolution, against the science that showed SDI wouldn't work, and now against the science indicating the world is warming -- it is nary impossible to find a leftie amongst them. But, you cry, Gross's and Leavitt's real targets are the postmodernists/social constructivists, who're definitely a bunch of lefties, no? Well, okay, if you think that people like Nietsche and Nazi Party member Heidegger, two of the primary inspirations of that school, are lefties. To be fair, some of the authors' targets are of the left -- for example, that branch of feminism which tried to twist science for ideological reasons -- but this is by no means uniformly the case. Antiscientific idiots are to be found all across the political spectrum, but the majority of them seem always to be on the political right.

I succeeded in ploughing through this book because I had to for the sake of research. What's depressing is that, behind the tone of infantile sneer, there's some very valuable stuff being said. But I imagine that most of the people who should be reading it will have thrown the book at the wall in disgust long before they get that far.

[Benjamin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Skip this one. I am biased in favor of the overall thesis, but the presentation is exceedingly dry. The authors are aping the puffed up language of those they are attacking, and 250 pages is far too long for that particular joke. When the authors simply summarize work they waded through while they were preparing the book, the reader is treated to such gems as Hunter Adams, an apparently respected academic who, in his zeal to promote African culture, has made claims that ancient Egyptian science rivaling modern capabilities was enabled by telepathic capabilities. Instead, most of the book describes, from considerable distance, why the approaches of certain movements are misguided. That point is basically self-apparent, and repeating it gets old fast.

my favorite quote: "How do we permit a wide public to have a serious voice in such deliberations without inviting in gullibility, ignorance, and mere faddishness--without inviting in the PR operators? The easy answer, of course, is to educate the great mass of citizens in such a way that thinking accurately about science is possible, if not quite second nature."

[Mark Isaak · Rating 4 out of 5]

The target of this book, postmodernism, has thankfully dwindled in quantity and influence as its absurdities became undeniable. Much of the book's relevance, thus, is past. Still, many of the arguments still apply to today's "post-truth" attitudes. Plus, the take-downs are fun to read.

However, Gross and Levitt seriously fail with one of their arguments. In arguing about extremist claims of the environmental movement, they consider probability of the threat coming to pass, but they neglect the magnitude of the threat. If there is a one percent chance that something will kill thousands of people, that something deserves attention. In the case of global warming, Gross and Levitt (in 1994) stated that the science is not certain, so there is no cause for alarmist remarks. Yet they also acknowledged that the threat is plausible, and they are smart enough to recognize that, should it occur, the warming would harm hundreds of millions of people from sea level rise alone. That, to me, is cause for alarm, even in 1994.

[Spencer Willardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is thought-provoking. Written by scientists who consider themselves liberal more than 25 years ago, the book details the problems of postmodernism run amok. They are mostly aghast at the way that this mode of thinking can result in an anti-scientism from the left that erodes the foundation of science.

[Steven H · Rating 2 out of 5]

A CRITIQUE OF SOME ‘MUDDLEHEADED’ IDEAS OF LEFTISTS IN ACADEME

The authors wrote in the first chapter of this 1994 book, “Muddleheadedness has always been the sovereign force in human affairs---a force far more potent than malevolence or nobility… To crusade against muddleheadedness, therefore may be the most futile … quest of all. Inasmuch as that is the aim of this book, we concede that we may be as misguided as any of our subjects… Our subject is the peculiarly troubled relationship between the natural sciences and a large and influential segment of the American academic community which, for convenience… we call here ‘the academic left.’ … To put it bluntly, the academic left dislikes science… it dislikes some of the uses to which science is put by the political and economic forces controlling our society… hostility extends to the social structures through which science is institutionalized, to the system of education by which professional scientists are produced, and to a mentality that is taken, rightly or wrongly, as characteristic of scientists… This category is comprised, in the main, of humanists and social scientists; rarely do working natural scientists … show up within its ranks… What defines it… is a deep concern with cultural issues and… a commitment to the idea that fundamental political change is urgently needed and can be achieved only through revolutionary processes rooted in a wholesale revision of cultural categories… What is threatened is the capability of the larger culture, which embraces the mass media as well as the more serious processes of education… to evaluate science intelligently.” (Pg.1-4)

They continue, “A curious fact about the recent left-wing criticism of science is the degree to which its instigators have overcome their … indifference toward the subject not by studying it in detail but rather by creating a repertoire of rationalizations for avoiding such study… Thus we encounter books that pontificate about the intellectual crisis of contemporary physics, whose authors have … never been inside a real laboratory.” (Pg. 5-6)

They assert, “The academic left’s critiques of science have come to exert a remarkable influence. The primary reason for their success is not that they put forward sound arguments, but rather that they resort constantly and shamelessly to MORAL ONE-UPMANSHIP. If you decry the feminist critique of science, you are guilty of trying to preserve science as an old-boy’s network. If you take exception to eco-apocalyptic rhetoric, you are an agent… of the greed of capitalist-industrialist polluters. If you reject… postmodernism, you are… linked hopelessly to a failing white-male-European hegemony.” (Pg. 8)

They clarify, “There are countless academics who do excellent and penetrating work, in appropriate fields, from a left-wing viewpoint… We are using ‘academic left’ to designate those people whose doctrinal idiosyncrasies sustain the misreadings of science, its methods, and its conceptual foundations that have generated what nowadays passes for a politically progressive critique of it.” (Pg. 9)

They acknowledge, “The dethronement of the literary and artistic ‘canon,’ for instance, is packaged carefully and announced to all who hear and read as a movement to empower the unempowered by letting us all hear the voices of those heretofore silenced. New modes of doing sociology and anthropology are proposed as ways of rescuing historically subordinate peoples from the ignominious position of ‘objects of study,’ and endowing them with agency and meaningful historical will. This is by no means a hypocritical or disingenuous pose. These arguments do have moral force. They have to be reckoned with … by anyone concerned with equity and the redress of historical injustice. Nevertheless, the aroma of sour grapes is in the air. The urge to redeem slides easily into an eagerness to debunk for the sake of debunking.” (Pg. 26)

They suggest, “over the last twenty-five years the entire process of recruitment into academic careers… has been altered in a way that lures people with left-wing sympathies and hopes for radical social change into scholarly careers, while simultaneously bright young students of conservative bent are less and less enchanted at the prospect of joining the professorate…. The glamorization of high-powered careers in business, finance, and corporate law has something to do with it.” (Pg. 35)

They summarize, “It is not for this book to judge the moral worth of [the left’s] prescriptions for the constitution of society or the political practicality of putting them into effect. Those arguments will resound in one way or another for the foreseeable future… We are obliged to observes… that leftists have a long history of weaving philosophical phantoms into fantasies of universal redemption. We are convinced that the academic left’s recent attempts to theorize ‘science and society’ are further instances of the same thing.” (Pg. 41)

They state, “Professors in the humanities are not, by and large, any more feeble-minded than the general run of humanity… left-wing political opinions are not especially inconsistent with high intelligence either, nor do they lead to a generalized susceptibility to muddled thinking. Why, then, has so large a proportion of the left-wing professorate in literature and adjacent disciplines been so ripe for seduction by the potpourri of views---deconstructionist, Foucaldian, and otherwise---traveling under the catchall term ‘postmodernism’?” (Pg. 82)

They clarify, “we have no quarrel with environment-consciousness… it is based upon a sound conviction… There is no reason to be concerned about an environmentalism so based: quite the contrary. To a large extent we share its basic fears. Most of the problems environmentalists point to have a real component. Our concern is, rather, with a revived, apocalyptic naturism is that, in several versions, caught the fancy of young people generally and engages a rapidly increasing number of well-meaning adults.” (Pg. 157)

They single out Jeremy Rifkin for criticism: “Why… should professional intellectuals, who have been trained in analytical thinking of some sort and presumably practice it for a living, be so eager to promote Rifkin as a major thinker on ecological issues? The sad truth seems to be that professorial tenure does not immunize people against spin doctors, political or scientific. Rifkin… hits on all the hot buttons, deploys all the buzzwords at once. This tactic, together with a willingness to stoke all the postmodern leftist’s prejudices against Western methodology, ontology, and epistemology, is enough to put to flight any lingering impulse to make careful distinctions, especially those that require scientific knowledge.” (Pg. 175)

They turn to Afrocentrism: “At first glance, some of the key elements of the Afrocentric approach seem benign. What is wrong with the idea that talented black kids… should be familiarized with the lives and achievements of black scientists and the accomplishments of African cultures in the areas of technology and speculative science?... Unfortunately, in the grim comedy of American education, lower and higher, things are not so simple. If one examines the nascent literature of Afrocentric science, one is immediately struck by two things: the enormous amount of Afrocentrism, and the remarkable paucity of science. Even worse, however, is the flagrant falsification of science (and of history and ethnography as well) in the service of Afrocentric chauvinism. The notion that intelligent but naïve students will first encounter ‘science’ in this form is chilling indeed… There is the refusal… to recognize that ‘Africa,’ a geographical term, is not synonymous with race or culture… The great cultural variety of the African continent over the course of history is flattened into a simpleminded Africanness… Naturally, the claims on behalf of Egyptian science and mathematics are correspondingly exaggerated.’ (Pg. 205-207)

They conclude, “At this point in history, for anyone who has read it honestly, the status of science as a reliable, profound, and productive source of knowledge ought to be beyond serous question. That vague but grandiloquent challenges nevertheless recur incessantly remains… a source of sad perplexity. That many of these challenges now issue from a community that consists, regardless of ideology, of people who have presumably enjoyed a first-class education and who have, all their adult lives, played a central role in the larger intellectual world deepens our misgivings. We would have been much happier if this book had been unnecessary… For us to believe that a book of this kind is needed means at very least that … we have had to abandon the complacent feeling that the republic of intellectual inquiry is secure from internal decay.” (Pg. 256-257)

This book will appeal to critics of academics supporting feminism, postmodernism, and Afrocentrism, and will be disparaged by those supporting such topics.

[Osore Misanthrope · Rating 3 out of 5]

О, лењости, гора си од болести!

Виша сила: академска левица у завади са науком датира из времена када су се водили “ратови око науке”, о чему сам слушао на предавањима. Аутори, биолог и математичар, док и сами нагињу на лево, нападају антиреализам који је завладао у академској левици, у време када сам био одојче, да би четири године касније, у новом издању, рекли да би књига морала имати и критику креациониста и (академске) деснице када би је писали изнова. Основна замерка јесу фактичке грешке из корпуса природних наука и математике које праве друштвењаци, демонстрирана на примеру VIP академика. Ко ме је пажљиво читао нешто јаче од три године, зна да се од 90-их наовамо готово ништа није променило – претенциозни лењивци и даље се хватају за теорије хаоса и еволуције, а да притом не умеју да реше диференцијалну једначину првог реда, нити знају шта су ген и адаптација, третирајући ненаучне хипотезе као научне чињенице, а у циљу апологије сопствене идеологије. Мишљење може имати свако, али ако је оно формирано погрешним и површним учењем STEM наука из прашњавих, популарних и секундарних штива, по принципу скупљања трачева, а онда препаковано у самозвани оригинални научни рад, то је интелектуално шарлатанство, евентуално мађионичарска филозофија, и заслужује један дубински третман у челичној девици, да се високо уздигнути носеви истресу из туђих дворишта. Постиже ли се то у овој књизи? Убоди су летимични и слаби, логореични, змијугавих реченица чије крљушти морају да бљесну у тону неколико опскурних епитета, али основна порука је јасна.

Аутори разликују:
• Меки социјални конструктивизам: полазећи од најшире дефиниције културе као свега што је човек створио, наука се види као људска делатна творевина чији циљеви, намене и предмет истраживања јесу под утицајем друштва (пример: почетни отпор према Дарвиновој сексуалној селекцији јер види женке као пасивне). Светоназор научника, као и захтеви тржишта и финансијера (будући да је наука роба), диктирају истраживачке теме; нажалост, доминантан је антропоцентрични, биомедициснки приступ у биологији.
• Тврди социјални конструктивизам: наука је сет конвенција, дискурс интерпретативне заједнице, историјски/културолошки-специфична перспектива у којој је свет виђен као представа, а емпиријска истраживања су сведена на текстуалне праксе, те се сазнање не може разликовати од сујеверја.

Критикује се екстремна форма антиреализма, јак социјални конструктивизам који своди науку на друштвене конвенције акцентујући идеолошку обојеност и епистемолошку искривљеност – чињенице се наводно не откривају, већ стварају. (Ово код неких произилази из искривљеног читања Томаса Куна.)

Циркуларност аргумента: претпоставља се постојање друштвене конструкције ab initio. Како је критика науке од стране социјалних конструктивиста поуздана ако постоји епистемолошка контаминација друштвеним факторима (норме, обичајност, предрасуде, итд.)? Није ли онда и сам антиреализам конструисан? Ако кажемо да не постоји поуздани, истиносни говорник, како проверити исправност ове тврдње?

Натуралистичка и мереолошка грешка, грешка реификације и деификације.

На потерници:
• Стенли Арановиц: из принципа неодређености у физици извлачи погрешан закључак о непоузданости свих опсервабилних феномена.
• Стивен Бест, Џереми Рифкин, Кетрин Хејлс: неразумевање и погрешна интерпретација теорије хаоса.
• Бруно Латур: природа као конвенција; лош математичар.
• Постмодернисти, постструктуралисти и сродници (Фуко, Бодријар, Лиотар): генерализација – не постоји универзално сазнање, већ само текст(уални наративи); стварни свет се спознаје кроз густи вео семиосфере, а језик којим се неминовно описује је импотентан (Дерида); дубинска читања научних радова наводно разоткривају (фројдовске) омашке и идеолошке обојености у језику.
• Феминистичка наука прочишћена од мизогиније, сексизма, родних предрасуда, хомофобије, расизма… Критика: бављење метафорама, уместо анализом научне праксе и резултата. (Највећи допринос феминистичке струје биологији можда је у повећаном укључивању женки у огледе.)
• Кембел & Кембел-Рајт – Ка феминистичкој алгебри: ослободити се родних стереотипа у математичким задацима. Критика: како математичар може истовремено подучавати препознавање суштинских проблема и бављење периферним стварима?
• Екотописти и екоспиритуалисти, апокалиптичари и озелењена hippy-happy комуна са (паганским) митом о исконској, нетакнутој природи, (романтичарским) визијама пасторалне прошлости и хармоничне и статичне природе. Џереми Рифкин оптужен за “псеудонаучни алармизам”. Данас се паника испоставља све оправданијом, климатске промене достижу тачку без повратка, а највеће масовно изумирање је рецентно – doomsday preppers постају маскота еремозоика.
• Поборници антинаучног сентимента око сиде – теорије завере: “the disease is seen as a semiological construct, a phantom animated by the illusions of a reactionary culture, a creature of disordered discourse, a mere symptom of the tissue of social prejudices that surrounds us”.
• Антививисекционисти, борци за права животиња – насилни према истраживачима, организују рације по виваријумима и ослобађају огледне животиње.
• Питер Сингер, Том Реган, Керол Џ. Адамс, Дебора Слајсер, Бел Хукс, Сандра Хардинг, Дона Харавеј…
• Псеудонаучни афроцентрици: “Фалсификације науке (и историје и етнографије) у корист афроцентричног шовинизма.” Афричка култура се види као монолитна, а древни Египћани као црнци. Иван Ван Сертима и Хантер Х. Адамс само са средњошколском дипломом повезан са меланинским академицима, расистима који проповедају супериорност људи са тамном кожом.

“[T]he “critical theory” in which academic leftists take such delight is a swamp of jargon, name dropping, logic chopping, and massive attempts to obliterate the obvious.”

Примери булажњења:
• Деконструктивистичко читање научних текстова о оплођењу који хиперболишу пасивност/активност гамета. Активно учествовање јајне ћелије у оплодњи није спознато захваљујући промени гешталта, феминистичкој перспективи, већ као производ непристрасног истраживања. (Јајна ћелија је скоро 100 година пре рада “Енергетско јаје” виђена као активна открићем партеногенезе!) “The criticism is riper by far than the criticized. There can’t be many places in the literature of science where the unfertilized egg is called a proper lady, much less a whore.”
• Екстраполација од бонобо мајмуна на човека чији корени су наводно полиаморни, пацифистички, родно небинарни, матријархални и квир, а никако хетеронормативни.
• Ен Фаусто-Стерлинг и други инсистирају на кооперативним, мутуалистичким биотичким односима и виде природу као социјалистички колектив, пренебрегавајући компетицију, (капиталистичке) крваве чељусти и канџе. Није ли лисенкоизам био довољна лекција? Реификација друштва и персонификација природе, иако супротног смера, подједнако су кобни. Понављам да је стожер биотичких односа коегзистенција, а фокусирање само на кооперацију, компетицију или, далеко било, страх, јесте редукционизам (о проблематичности крајолика страха у екологији нећу трошити речи). Дакле, природа се опире бинарним категоријама: кооперација/компетиција, добро/лоше, урођено/стечено…
• Племе Догон наводно открило Сиријус – доказ је цртеж звезде са крацима који су артефакт услед посматрања телескопом.
• Елемент вере у науци – природној (узорак ми је мали, али верујем у резултат) и друштвеној (верник сам, и зато изучавам хомеопатију и житија).
• Панадаптационизам/панглосијанизам (ненаучне хипотезе о биофилији као адаптацији, књижевни дарвинизам и слично).
• Геа хипотеза, меме, проширени фенотип, neuro-lit-crit...

[JabJo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Readers of this book will likely already be in one camp or the other. Just for the record, I'm on board with the authors on some aspects, if not all.

My interest springs from the pall of postmodernist discourse that has descended over the visual arts to the point that in academic galleries and fine arts departments, it's hard to see the art over the intrusion of what we used to call "social studies." So it's interesting to me to learn that science is undergoing a similar assault. The authors emphasize that to non-scientists, the discourse has become more important than the science. (Fortunately Science, like The Dude, abides.) It's an interesting parallel to the academic art world. Where a picture used to be worth a thousand words, now it takes a few thousand words to explain the picture. "Can you draw?" "No, but I can sure as hell talk about it for longer than you want!"

Can't give it 5 stars because it was long-winded and spent the first couple of chapters over-rationalizing the position. And in spite of a university education, I found the vocabulary overdone. But still, enough meat on the bone to make it an important read and a validation of many doubts you may be harbouring about deconstruction, postmodernism and the wreckage it has left in the academic world.

[Scott Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a fairly interesting read. Basically written in response to what many scientists view as an attack on the foundations of science from the "academic left" which is generally identified as post-modernism. Right off the bat they authors make clear their distaste of when social schools of thought interfere and attempt to put a spin on the scientific method. Some culprits include multiculturalism, feminism, and environmentalism. They clearly did a lot of research into this and do a good job of putting together their arguments on how each attempt by postmodernists to label science as simply a social construct are flawed.
Not sure i'm totally convinced but they do bring up some good points. As with everything else balance is the correct key. It really isn't a contest between the academic left and right that matters. So two elitist academic extremes are arguing. What does this mean for the real world, for the public? I wish there was a bit more of that discussion. Ended up just as too much of a political treatise.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important follow up to the Sokal Hoax and its fallout, although now noticeably dated.

Its main value is in the abundant detailed examples of Postmodernist idiocy. It demonstrates that even educated people can be scientifically illiterate. This can lead to the obfuscation of important and urgent issues when in public debate. Climate change & Covid, & their anti-science denialists being the current pressing ones.

Unfortunately, much of the debate at the time of writing seems to be framed as a political Right/Left antagonism, with the Left on the anti-science side. More recently, it appears more often that the Right is more likely involved in denialism, anti-science, & conspiracy nonsense. Apart from that, it is still a valuable illustration of the pressing need for improving education systems and science literacy.

[Gregory · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you want to understand how ridiculous the "postmodern" critique of science is, read about Alan Sokal's prank article in Social Text, and the ensuing debate. Skip this turgid, bloated diatribe.

Hundreds of pages of minute exegesis of ridiculous social and literary criticism, of the kind that would fall over from the weight of its own silliness. The less said the better. And the authors - real scientists, mind you! - offer only lame speculation as to why such fads have spread through Academia. There are causes worth investigating, such as the pressure to publish, combined with a proliferation of journals that are not peer reviewed. The authors seem content to blame Marxism. Really, Marxism?

[Jrobertus]

coauthor: leavitt, norman. this is a fierce attack on perspectives pc deconstructionism. a bit too long, but these anti-intellectual leftists are worthy targets.

[Maik Civeira · Rating 4 out of 5]

El libro empieza exponiendo rápidamente la situación: lo que ellos llaman "Academia de Izquierda" ha adoptado posturas anticientíficas en las diversas universidades de los Estados Unidos, lo que ha llevado a toda clase de abusos intelectuales y disparates. Habla de cómo históricamente la ciencia había sido aliada de la izquierda, pues el descubrimiento de verdades sobre el mundo era una herramienta poderosísima para derribar los mitos de las clases poderosas (piénsese en el derecho divino de los reyes). Cuenta cómo el posmodernismo ha destruido esa alianza.

Narra una breve historia de las izquierdas estadounidenses a lo largo del siglo XX. Señala que a partir de la década de los 70, los intelectuales de izquierda se han retirado más y más del campo de la lucha social y se han encerrado en sus torres de marfil en las universidades, donde en la época en la que escribe el libro, se dedican a tener discusiones bizantinas (postmodernistas) que en nada ayudan a las clases oprimidas. Más importante aún, cuenta el origen del Deconstructivismo en la teoría literaria y su exportación a otros estudios, en particular la filosofía y la sociología de la ciencia, que es donde ha causado el daño que los autores quieren reparar.

Finalmente, el libro llama a los científicos a salir de sus academias e involucrarse en la divulgación y educación de las ciencias, pues es principalmente la enorme distancia que se creó entre ciencias naturales y ciencias sociales, y entre público y academia, la que ha llevado a estos excesos.

[Ali Al-ismail · Rating 1 out of 5]

في بداية الكتاب، المؤلفين يقولون أن هدفهم هو مو التعليق على المواقف السياسية اللي يتبناها اليسار، إنما على الهجوم على العلم وإساءة استخدامه من الأكاديميين اليساريين المتخصصين في المجالات الإنسانية. ولو أن عندي تعاطف مع هذي القضية وأشوف أن نحتاج كتب أكثر عن هالموضوع، إلا أن الكتاب هذا كان أبعد ما يكون عن هدفه المزعوم.

معظم الكتاب كان هجوم على التيارات اللي يسموها المؤلفين: "المارسكي"، "اليساري"، "ما بعد الحداثي"، "النسوي". القارئ المهتم بهدف الكتاب المزعوم المفروض ما يهتم إلى التيار (بغض النظر عن هل استخدام المؤلفين للتيار صحيح أو لا) اللي تصدر منه إساءة استخدام العلم بقدر ما يهتم بالمحتوى اللي يسيء استخدام العلم. بس المؤلفين قرروا يخصصون غالبية الكتاب إلى التيارات هذي.

في المقتطفات القليلة اللي المؤلفين يتلزمون بهدف الكتاب، حججهم مثيرة للشفقة. على سبيل المثال، في مسنادتهم لحجة أن مبدأ هايزنبرغ للشك هو حقيقة موضوعية عن العالم الخارجي (صحيح) يقولون أنه لو ما كان حقيقة موضوعية كان ما صار كل هالضجيج عليه. أغبى حجة سمعتها هالسنة.

بس حجة وحدة قدمها الكتاب كانت مثيرة للاهتمام، وهي أن المشككين في شرعية العلوم الطبيعية يفترضون صلاحية المنهج العلمي وهم ما يدرون. هذي الحجة الوحيدة اللي خلتني أستمر في قراءة الكتاب، قبل لا أوصل للجزء اللي يقول الكتاب فيه أن التمييز الوحيد الموجود في أقسام العلوم الجامعية هو التمييز ضد الرجل الأبيض. هني قررت أوقف قراءة الكتاب.

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Both a fantastic and frustrating read. The topic of the book, left-wing post-modernism/feminism/environmentalism attacks on science, seems relevant still thirty years after publication. The authors carefully lay out various anti-science positions held by so-called left-wing academics but they do it in an irritatingly verbose manner. The book is highly quotable though the authors choose to be very aggressive in their denunciations. At one point, they complain about ad hominem attacks though they, themselves, engage in such attacks throughout the book. The authors are extremely arrogant in their opinions and judging with thirty additional years of research, they grossly misfired on their climate change denialism. I agree with many of the arguments being made in this book. English scholars have no business writing cultural critiques of quantum mechanics or other scientific theories that they don’t understand. Some humanities scholars have overstepped their bounds by commenting on how science should be done. Postmodernists need to understand the limits of their expertise with some grace. In summary, you’ll laugh, you’ll cry, and you’ll (probably) hurl. Recommended read (4*)

[Grazyna Nawrocka · Rating 5 out of 5]

I couldn't get this book from the library, so I had to read it as eBook. Unfortunately, the provider blotted out about 7% of the pages.

I disagree with many opinions of the author. This said, I have no expertise whatsoever to assess scientific merit of author's ideas. I am not familiar with subject areas nor literature under the review.
Still, I enjoyed reading this book. It is not an easy lecture, but has smooth style and interesting presentation. The book has so many controversial statements, that I wish it started huge intellectual storm and exchange of experts' discussions. As it is, the book is not available, and perhaps it hasn't even been noticed in scientific environment. After all, it seems politically incorrect.

[Brett Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

“There is a growing disdain for reason and science [and] it is not simply a bugbear of conservatives looking for a pretext to discredit the left,” writes University of Virginia microbiologist Paul R. Gross and Rutgers University mathematician Norman Levitt in this often-mesmeric book. “Indeed, left and right are curiously united on these issues.”

In this book, Gross and Levitt reveal the sometimes hilarious, more often grotesque, but always hollow arguments from our New Left postmodernist humanities, straining after all these decades to be relevant through their “demystification” of science by trying to tear it down. Why? Because it is the crowning achievement of the West’s “Eurocentric, white-male, patriarchy,” say the authors. While scientific methodology, discoveries, and laws are all “deconstructed” by Marxist claims that it’s really “bourgeois” science corrupted by “ineradicable gender bias” with a dash of multiculturalist posturing (“science fails inclusivity of all voices”), not once do postmoderns actually address the science. All the while, those devices science built—from Voyager to the Covid vaccine—work just as science designed. And yet, the solution to this success is to replace “Western science”—well worn by China, India, and Japan—with “feminist science,” “black science,” “queer science.” (Yes, this is what academics call it.) Like Hitler’s “Nazi science,” as they claimed, “free of Jews,” and Stalin’s “Proletariat science,” free of capitalists, this proves that today’s humanities academics haven’t a clue what science is either. A non-race-gender-sex-political description of nature so accurate it can measure gravity wave amplitudes one-ten-thousandth of a proton’s diameter, created by black hole mergers one billion light-years away. “The key function of these [academic] myths is to gratify the resentment and self-righteousness of those who propose them,” write the authors, “to serve as symbolic wish-fulfillment in a world that is notably indifferent to them.” Why? Despite postmodern liberalism’s remarkable pop, media, and social influence, “the rule of thumb [in academia] has been that the hard scientists produce reliable knowledge, assembled into coherent theories… The more theoretical the social ‘scientists’ are, the less respect they get… out of the running in the epistemological sweepstakes.”

For the New Left, science is merely a “social construct,” no more valid than any other. As U.C. Berkley’s Paul Feyerabend put it, science is no more valid than voodoo. Yet, the late Feyerabend sought Western medicine (too late) to save him from the brain tumor that killed him. What happened to voodoo? All postmoderns, like Feyerabend, write their books on computers, fly on commercial aircraft, drive cars, and watch television, all products of science, proving science knows what it’s doing. Gross and Levitt show with published examples from our university humanities how postmodernist claptrap is pampered and indulged by university administrators who fear labeling of racist, sexist, homophobe, in order to cut loose politically correct authoritarian student radicals for retribution. It is, writes the authors, “the manifestation of a certain intellectual debility afflicting the contemporary university: one that will ultimately threaten it.” And pushed at taxpayer expense from a wide array of university disciplines: Cultural Studies, Women’s Studies, Fat Studies, Gender Studies, Queer Studies (yes, this is what they’re labeled in the university syllabus), Feminist Theorists who claim Newton’s Principia is a “rape manual” (that would be UCLA’s Sandra Harding) and Afrocentrism which holds that black Egyptians were on the U.S. continent long before Columbus, guiding Native Americans. Despite the utter absence of evidence—like “Stop the Steal” coddled by our New Right cult—this yarn is protected by academia because it “engenders pride in black students” to believe lies. “The ‘politics of identity’ is now sanctified on campus,” say Gross and Levitt. “Increasingly, many groups are held to deserve their own separate inviolable space.” (And their own “alternative facts,” as likewise promoted by Trumpers.) Segregation, just as the Klan hoped for, each with its own “science,” which isn't science.

A good survey of the dogmatic toxin destroying our university humanities, and one of the trio of anti-science movements including this, the economic Right (Merchants of Doubt), and religious fundamentalists (Darwin Day).

[RL RANDALL · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors clearly have an axe to grind. As such, it puts anyone reading the book who is not a fervent supporter of science on the defense. Having stated that, this a super important read for anyone who wants to keep civilization anchored to constructive progress and enlightened thinking. It is so ironic how the critics of science are ignorant of the process and yet are so dependent on the results of science to stand upon their dais casting socialistic discursive aspersions. Post-modernism should stay In its swim lane of philosophical discourse and leave reality to the rational standards of empiricism.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important discussion, showing that the far left has similar ideological issues to the far right (even if well meaning). For an essentially defensive text it's actually reasonably balanced, and remains useful

[Katie Marino · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think the book could have been shorter, and some of it was over my head. But I enjoyed the challenge!

[Peter · Rating 1 out of 5]

The authors have something to say. It isn't right that when you disagree with a specific environmental issue you are cast as hating the planet. Or that not agreeing with every measure designed to help minorities makes you sexists and/or racist. But despite the authors protests to the contrary, this book only bases one end of the spectrum, there are extremes on the right that get a pass.

Also the books says the same thing over and over. Not my ideal way to make a point.