Areo
  • Features
  • Politics
  • Culture & Media
  • Science & Tech
  • Psychology
  • Review
  • About
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Submissions
9K Likes
16K Followers
Areo
Areo
  • Features
  • Politics
  • Culture & Media
  • Science & Tech
  • Psychology
  • Review
Facebook 9K Likes
Twitter 16K Followers
  • Psychology

Semantics and the Need for Good Explanations

  • July 3, 2019
  • 6 comments
  • 4 minute read
  • Dan Melo
Total
36
Shares
36
0
0

Semantics have long played a role in the culture wars. As we grapple with the implications of concentration camps, identity politics and postmodernism, we are in desperate need of a rational means of resolving conflicting ideologies, a way of settling the is before deciding on the ought. We need good explanations.

In The Beginning of Infinity, David Deutsch makes the case for the pursuit of good explanations as the only means of enabling progress and moving past word games. Deutsch argues that—contrary to the assertions of empiricism that we derive our theories of how things work from sensory experience—we begin with conjectures and use experience to alter them as we go along: despite having never experienced flight, we developed good explanatory theories about flying and then flew, in that order. Part of what makes an explanation good is that it is hard to vary—our current explanation about the seasons is predicated on a number of factors—planet tilt, orbit, etc.—rather than, say, a mythological ancient god—who could be swapped for an infinite number of other divinities without changing the story—warming or cooling the planet. Good explanations have predictive power. We can expect the law of gravity to apply on both on Earth and Mars—which allowed us to land a rover on Mars, without ever having experienced Mars directly.

In Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson’s recent debate, Zizek challenged Peterson on his frequent use of the term postmodern neo-Marxism, which he claims is prevalent on the academic left. Zizek asked Peterson to name one person who exemplified this. Peterson could not. Instead, he responded that Marxism and postmodernism are connected by shared narratives of oppression. However, as Zizek pointed out, Foucault and other postmodernists developed their theories (i.e. their explanations) in express opposition to large overarching historical narratives like Marx’s. Essentially, Marx’s theory of capital and class struggle is about as far removed from postmodernism as it’s possible to get. As a critique of postmodernism, Marxism or leftist academia, Peterson’s approach is unclear at best and flat out wrong at worst. It tells us nothing about why narratives of oppression might be problematic and, therefore, why postmodernism is a bad explanation. Contrast this with Deutsch’s critique of postmodernism, deconstructionism and structuralism in Infinity. For Deutsch, postmodernism is a bad explanation of the world because of its own internal logic: “it is a narrative that resists rational criticism or improvement, precisely because it rejects all criticism as mere narrative.”

Offering explanations for our choices of terms in the battle of ideologies shapes our ability to make social and political progress. Deutsch applies Popper’s criterion, whereby the ideal political system makes it as easy as possible to detect and non-violently remove bad ideas and leaders, rather than try to install good ones. Deutsch’s and Popper’s approaches are defined by their availability to criticism—which postmodernism lacks.

Deutsch’s work on good explanations provides us with a filter through which to sift competing descriptions of what is, based on the availability and openness to criticism of explanations. We can argue over the meaning of human life, for example, by first developing hard-to-vary explanations of it, and then criticizing and refining those in order to better arrive at what assembly (or lack thereof) of constituent parts (brain function, heartbeat, consciousness, etc.) is pre-requisite and how different configurations will predict whether a fetus has begun living or not. By extension, we can also predict when a human life has been extinguished. Then and only then will we be able to proceed to the ought. The factual underpinnings (our explanations) must inform our moral judgments, but must also be understood as necessarily flawed and open to criticism.

This pursuit of good explanations need not lead to the temptation of infinite regress or the continuum fallacy. Explanations can be endlessly supported by infinitely regressive propositions that require their own explanations. Conversely, we face the paradoxical problem of trying to decide the exact point at which something is, say, objectively alive—just as we would if deciding whether someone were bald (i.e. deciding how many hairs would need to be added to a bald head before it could no longer be defined as bald). These problems should not stop us from attempting to formulate increasingly refined explanations for our reality: they simply indicate that we must continue to be critical of the ability of such explanations to better reflect reality and, accordingly, dictate how we should behave.

For the sake of making progress in our ideologies and their societal implications, we must demand of ourselves and one another an accounting for—and openness to criticism of—our explanations. Moving on from flawed explanations (or at least the erroneous parts of them) is the only way in which we will better grasp reality and what we should do with it. Peterson’s willingness to expose his explanations to criticism is to his credit and to everyone’s benefit—there may be flaws in Marx’s theories, but they do not explain postmodernism’s influence on academic thought nor does postmodernism’s failure reflect on Marx’s ideas about class struggle. But, without Peterson’s attempt to explain the connection between the two, we might have continued circulating the bad and pointless explanation about postmodern neo-Marxism. By exposing a bad explanation, we invite an attempt at a new, better one. And that, as Deutsch argues, is progress.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:
Total
36
Shares
Share 36
Tweet 0
Pin it 0
Related Topics
  • Language
  • Philosophy
  • Political Polarization
  • Semantics
Dan Melo

Dan Melo is a recovering lawyer, lover, and learner of many things. He is currently writing a book exploring our inability to be reasonable.

Previous Article
  • Culture & Media
  • Review

A. C. Grayling’s The History of Philosophy. Book Review

  • July 2, 2019
  • Daniel James Sharp
View Post
Next Article
  • Psychology

Dogma Is Not Confined to the Cathedral

  • July 4, 2019
  • Logan Chipkin
View Post
You May Also Like
View Post
  • Politics
  • Psychology

Come on B_by, Light My Fire: Challenges to Critical Thinking in Higher Education

  • December 9, 2019
  • Maximilian Werner
View Post
  • Features
  • Psychology
  • Science & Tech

The Uses and Abuses of the Human Sciences

  • December 3, 2019
  • Galen Watts
View Post
  • Psychology

A WEIRD Problem for Human Nature

  • November 27, 2019
  • Alejandro Rujano
View Post
  • Politics
  • Psychology

Trump Isn’t Selfish—That’s the Problem

  • November 20, 2019
  • Ben Bayer
View Post
  • Politics
  • Psychology

The Disdain of the Clerks

  • November 14, 2019
  • Kevin Baldeosingh
View Post
  • Philosophy
  • Psychology

Realism, Righteousness, and the Need to Resist

  • November 1, 2019
  • Joseph S. Biehl
View Post
  • Features
  • Psychology

Culture-Bound Syndromes: Satanic Panics, Multiple Personality Disorder & ROGD

  • October 23, 2019
  • Louise Perry
View Post
  • Psychology
  • Science & Tech

Psychology’s Replication Crisis

  • October 1, 2019
  • Trenton Knauer
6 comments
  1. Inigo Montoya says:
    July 12, 2019 at 8:44 am

    “Foucault and other postmodernists developed their theories (i.e. their explanations) in express opposition to large overarching historical narratives like Marx’s”
    It’s almost a commonplace at this point that Foucault did end up creating an overarching historical narrative. Surely the fact he failed in his goal and ended up with something not too dissimilar to Marxism, even if that wasn’t the intent, is relevant. I wish Peterson would reply something like this.

    1
    Reply
  2. Ray Andrews says:
    July 4, 2019 at 10:33 am

    “It tells us nothing about why narratives of oppression might be problematic and, therefore, why postmodernism is a bad explanation.”

    It seems to me that Dr. P is very clear why it is problematic. Firstly because it isn’t true, and secondly because it institutionalizes tribalism.

    1
    Reply
    1. Eilidh says:
      July 6, 2019 at 12:49 am

      Yes, but calling left-wing ideas you don’t agree with “Marxism” (if there is minimal relation to actual Marxism) is not much different than branding right-wing ideas that you don’t agree with “Nazism” or “fascism”. Name calling rarely advances any conversation.

      4
      Reply
      1. Ray Andrews says:
        July 6, 2019 at 10:42 am

        What a fascinating mess language is. We fight about the meaning of words and we sorta hafta because if we are not clear what we mean we can’t say anything. Yet, words are plastic, they have soft edges, and they change meanings. We overload them with innuendo and magic spells. Yeah, we could ‘brand’ postmodernism as Marxist, or we could just note that there are indeed similarities without getting emotional about it.

        It seems to me that Dr. P knows that there are difficulties will all of these terms, they are always vague and abstract, but he’s trying to convey a comparison. Marxism is based on the narrative that there is this eternal struggle between labor and capital and that they are as different as oil and water and that the former must destroy the latter utterly because the latter is eternally wicked. Postmodernism — or some other label, but what might be called ‘Victimism’, the religion of the SJWs, — simply takes that framework and changes the actors: Instead of ‘capital’ we have The Patriarchy, evil and oppressive, and we have The Victims: wimin, POC, LGBTQ++?!, Muslims. The eschatology is identical: at the End of Days, The Victims, united against Oppression, will smash The Patriarchy and we will enter paradise. Surely the comparison is apt?

        2
        Reply
        1. Inigo Montoya says:
          July 12, 2019 at 8:48 am

          “Religion”, “eschatology”, “End Times”,…
          This suggests the superficial similarities between Marxism and Postmodernism are due to both following a much older template….

          1
          Reply
  3. John Merryman says:
    July 3, 2019 at 11:34 pm

    Part of the problem is our linear approach to a cyclical reality. As mobile, intentional organisms, we experience reality as flashes of perception and cognition, then narrate our journeys to one another and build civilizations out of the collective knowledge. So the narrative form dominates and is the basis for all culture.
    Ye time is not so much the point of the present flowing past to future, as it is change turning future to past. tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns.
    The effect is that while process goes past to future, the patterns generated go future to past. Consciousness goes past to future, while thoughts go future to past.
    Yet we are stuck in this narrative paradigm, like geocentrics trying to explain how the sun moves from east to west.
    Time is an effect, like temperature, pressure, color, etc. We could use ideal gas laws to correlate volume with temperature and pressure, but no one calls them 5th and 6th dimensions of space, because they are only foundational to our emotions, bodily functions and environment, rather then the sequencing of thought. Basically the left, logical hemisphere of the brain is a clock, while the right, emotional, intuitive side is a thermostat.
    There is no physical dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, in order to inform it, aka, causality.
    Different clocks run at different rates, because they are separate actions. Think frequencies, or metabolism.
    Time is asymmetric, because the activity being measured is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not either. The relative order of a system, entropy, is not what is measured and is irrelevant.
    So basically this reality is a tapestry being woven of strands pulled from it, in infinite feedback loops. As such, thermodynamics better describes what is happening, than the cause and effect of time. The future cannot be predetermined, as there is only this physical present, in which all calculations and determinations occur.
    Reality is this dichotomy of energy radiating out, as form coalesces in. Think galaxies. As organisms, we have the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems, processing the energy driving us on, along with a central nervous system to sort through the information precipitating out, as well as referee the emotions and impulses bubbling up.
    Society is this dichotomy of energies, emotions, sects, identities, etc, bubbling up, as civil and cultural forms coalesce in. basically liberal and conservative, youth and age. Yet because we have this narrative focus, each side sees themselves on the path to a more wonderful future, while those going the other way must be total fools.
    Neither understanding the forces compelling this circularity are far greater than any human emotion or cultural model.
    Eventually we might develop a more reciprocal, cyclical paradigm, but the current model will have to irrevocably fail first.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Eilidh Cancel reply

Read by Topic
Academia Alt-Right Art Conservatism Culture Democracy Donald Trump Economics Education Environmentalism Evolutionary Psychology Feature Feminism Freedom of Expression Free Expression Free Speech Gender Higher Education History Human Nature Human Rights Identity Politics Immigration Intersectionality Islam Islamism Letter Liberalism Media Mental Health Philosophy Political Correctness Political Polarization Politics Postmodernism Psychology Race Racism Regressive Left Religion Science Social Justice Social Media Terrorism Women's Rights
New to Areo
  • Antisemitism and Black Nationalism
  • Health and Justice: Neoliberalism, Apps and the Limits of Individual Choice
  • Threats to Free Speech at University, and How to Deal with Them—Part 1
  • Come on B_by, Light My Fire: Challenges to Critical Thinking in Higher Education
  • How Individualism and Social Constructivism Can Be Reconciled: Part 1
  • The Generational Divide and the Death of Dialectic
  • Australia: No Country for Celebrity Entitlement
  • The Uses and Abuses of the Human Sciences
Join the Discussion
  • Border Kallie on Dave Chappelle and Comedy
  • Alexander von Sternberg on Antisemitism and Black Nationalism
  • Robin Cox on Antisemitism and Black Nationalism
  • Ray Andrews on Antisemitism and Black Nationalism
  • Orwell: the Best Student of the Left | Merion West on A Preview of “What is Post-Modern Conservatism?: Essays on Our Hugely Tremendous Times.”
  • Jerry Barnett on Antisemitism and Black Nationalism
Read by Category
  • Areo Magazine
  • Battle of Ideas
  • Culture & Media
  • Features
  • From Under
  • Letter from the Editor
  • Philosophy
  • Politics
  • Psychology
  • Report
  • Review
  • Science & Tech
  • Uncategorized
  • What We're Reading
  • What's in the Works
Read from our Vault
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
AreoMagazine.com uses cookies. To find out more, as well as how to remove or block these, see here: Our Policy
Areo
  • About
  • Submissions
2016– 2019 © Areo Magazine

Input your search keywords and press Enter.