As to the intersection of postmodernism and science, I have only to refer you to Luce Irigaray, whose article “Is Science Sexed” argues that the speed of light is somehow “privileged” by power-wielding male oppressors. She is no lone nutcase, but “a prominent author in contemporary French feminism and Continental philosophy”.

No, “post modernism” says that there isn’t any intrinsic value on things and that what does happen is human interference and prejudice judgement.

The Problem on Post Modernism is that it is not taught as an alarm bell to the students to beware for these things tend to happen in a human world, and that they should instead keep their focus on the scientific method, on objectivity (even when it seems impossible to be objective) and rigor, but rather as cynicism towards the Scientific Method, and as an advice towards subjective action somewhere in their practice. Post Modernism school of thought tries to teach their students to be politicians!!

This is why, Francisco, you are wrong in your judgement.

Those are the kinds of things that post-modernist critics look into and analyze. The status of AGW as the “consensus” and the “official view” of “the scientists” totally confirms the post-modernist views. AGW is not what it is on its own merits. It is largely a creation. It has been steered toward becoming what it has become through the creation and massive funding of an unprecedented institution conceived for the sole purpose of proving or keeping alive a certain hypothesis, and also massive media campaigns. We know that. But it is not a “post-modernist” science. There is no such thing. It is a kind of science that illustrates to perfection the post-modernist view of science in general. You are wrong to think that these problems are confined to AGW, and that everywhere else science is all swell and governed by honest seeking of truth. That is not the case, and it has never been. Though AGW is the most monstruous an blatant example of a science almost completely created and hijacked for a political purpose.

The question is: what should govern science? The classic view s that reality and fact should be the basis of science. The Politically Correct theory says that there is no such thing as reality or fact, only politics–and politics dominates everything.

It is not a matter of taking this to a certain “degree”. Right is right, and deliberately perpetrating wrong (knowing full well that one is doing damage) is evil.

Yes, I said the word “evil”. Fact relates to value. AGW proponents–almost without exception–are demanding the power of a gun to forcibly deprive others of their liberty and property. They are plain old thugs with a postmodernist “science” to justify their powerlust.

You are right that climate change science is today the most blatant and clear illustration of the influence of social forces on scientific practice. In this case the effect is so huge that you could safely say this science is not just “affected” by social forces. You could say it seems to be totally “controlled” by such forces.

But don’t conclude from this that other sciences are exempt from the influence of social forces. None are, for the simple reason that all scientists belong to a society. This has always been the case. But science has gradually carved for itself a status outside and above the pettiness of other human forces, to the point that EVERYBODY wants to describe his or her views as “scientific.” (Don’t call me a “sociologist,” call me a social scientist, etc.) Everybody wants the validation of having their activities labeled as “science”.

Post-modernists are, in essence, doing nothing more than reminding people of these games. What you call “post-modernist science” is not so much something advocated by post-modernists. It is simply a view of science that looks at its function from a social perspective — and rightly refuses to accept that somehow science operates as a special entity outside of society, unaffected by social forces. That’s a healthy and common-sense view I find no reason to disagree with.

For a crystal-clear example: look at climate-change science. Yes, but don’t think it is the only one, or the first one.

I think we are going to get terribly bad science if we are going to demand politically correct findings. Whatever is going on in certain branches of climate science, it appears to be far removed from classic scientific method.

I have been following Climate Audit with increasing concern.

We are in a fog-of-war. I guess we need satellites to see more clearly (pun intended).

Now what?