Careful now, Curtis, you are well on your way down the slippery slope to understanding postmodernism :).
Ah, but of course, the postmodern condition is that we no longer can believe in the great world-explaining metanarratives of the past. Christianity, Marxism, Science–none of these can occupy the central place in the theory of knowledge they once did now that we have slipped into post-modernity.
Well, I agree with you on Christianity and Marxism, not so sure about Science.
Haven’t you yourself complained about a “naive scientism” that is prevalent on this message board? A complaint about the inability for certain technically-educated folks in our “information society” who are unable to see the limitations of science?
This isn’t to say that science doesn’t uncover true things or produce useful products, but rather that Science, as a mode of acquiring knowledge, is not the only way out there or even the best way out there. That is, we no longer believe that any one thing occupies the center of or explains how to go about acquiring knowledge or understanding the world. That is what metanarratives are: they are stories that provide the structure for all our subsidiary stories. Biology is a component of Science, and in some quarters, there is a belief other things can be Scientized–ethics, public policy, psychological treatment of individuals, etc. etc.
The post-modern condition is the repudiation of the possibility of such metanarratives.
That’s not really a complaint about science but a complaint about people who aren’t as smart as they think they are.
Hmm, I am not sure I agree with that totally. I agree that Science isn’t the ONLY way to know, but it is certainly one of the best and most accessible.
Just an amplification of Kimmy_Gibbler’s important point above. Many will insist that inexact social sciences like economics are sciences and that theories about economic behavior have the positive force of an empirical law. Thus, Alan Greenspan’s shock that bankers would act against their longterm self-interest by screwing up the global economy. Here’s a case of scientific authority abused in the service of justifying a particular version of the free market that favors a small number of very wealthy people at the expense of the many and of the future.