> Doug, the opposition between 'right' and 'wrong' is not the same as that of
> 'true' and 'false,' and what is at stake is the latter here.
of course, your position (as though it were a monad) is both Right and True; and it consists in large part of condemning those of all who disagree with you as both Wrong and False. how scientific.
> (I only introduced the question of morality because once you
> dispense with the true/false distinction, you tend to go by
> customs, common sense, received moral ideas, aesthetic
> preferences, etc., lacking in the standard of critical judgment
> -- the fact that ancient & modern sceptics -- with the exception
> of postmodernists -- did not deny and in fact often argued for as
> a kind of virtue.)
in other words, despite your curious use of 'only,' the question of morality is absolutely fundamental to your analysis. but how do you derive morals from scientific first principles?
<...>
> If only postmodernists were simply Machiavellians who limited their
> observation to the social world and human beings' relations to it, while
> simply disputing the relevance of moral value attribution ('right' vs.
> 'wrong'), without arguing that we ought to refrain from the
> science/ideology distinction (since in our practice we never dispense with
> the true/false distinction anyway), we wouldn't be having the current
> 'debates' here. Alas, they are not Machiavellian and are often quite
> moralistic -- for instance, their call to dispense with the 'regime of
> truth' is couched in a moralistic language -- in their rhetoric
> (unsupported by the premises of their philosophy).
sounds familiar.
<...>
> If postmodernists thought that 'guns,' not discourse, had been the main
> problem of 'Stalinism,' again, we wouldn't be having the 'debates' here.
> In fact, postmodernists had paid more attention to the 'violence of
> discourse' than the exercise of brute force.
>
> Besides, even 'Uncle Joe' at the height of his power could only make use
> of, not dismiss as irrelevant, the true explanations of causal powers in
> science. Otherwise, how did the USSR ever industrialize?
can you actually name a 'postmodernist' who makes the claims you've been attributing to them? not 'by implication' or by extrapolation, and not in the form of some convenient and unrepresentative snippet (example: judging by the 'tragedy' and 'farce' quote, we can see that marx was a theater critic). it'd be a help, too, if it was one who's been cited by someone who disagrees with you, not some clown hauled out on special occasions.
i don't think you can. and i think you're a heresiologist.
cheers, t