Just finished reading “Cynical Theories” by @HelenPluckrose & @ConceptualJames. I generally found it very useful, but have one big quibble with it. Let me explain. /1

“Cynical theories” does a really good job at examining the excesses of postmodern (critical) Theory. It presents a surprisingly nuanced view, pointing out that there is a valuable kernel of truth behind most postmodern criticisms of knowledge and societal structure. /2

It highlights how postmodernism itself became a grand narrative, from its initial deconstructionist post-structural phase, to applied & later reified postmodernism, what we call Social Justice Theory today. /3

It shows how postmodernism became increasingly incoherent & fundamentalist in the process, since it claims that no form of knowledge is better than any other, while at the same time dismissing anything that does not conform to its own ideology as unacceptable or even violent. /4

This tendency of postmodernists to label arguments they don’t like as epistemic violence has been going on my nerves for a long time. It’s trivialising “violence”, and is hugely disrespectful to people who experience real psychological or physical abuse. It’s also stupid. /5

“Cynical Theories” rightly points out that we cannot underestimate the totalitarian tendencies of the “woke” Social Justice movement. We cannot let them undermine essential public institutions like universities, education, or the media. /6

I also fully agrees that identity politics achieves exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do: by reifying and homogenising the experiences of minority groups, and by glorifying victimhood culture, it reinstates societal divisions it is supposed to dissolve. /7

Postmodernism is creating new boxes and labels for people where it is supposed to dissolve the rigid boundaries of concepts and ideas. It has become a thoroughly self-defeating, intolerant, and irrational movement by now. A danger to society. /8

Where I really disagree with “Cynical Theories” is the authors’ blind trust in liberalism as the way forward out of this conceptual morass. In a way, their uncritical stance towards liberalism is as much a blind spot as the fundamental inconsistency of postmodernism. /9

What the authors call “liberal science” is basically a free marketplace of ideas, based on an all-pervading competition based on debates that establish the one with the best argument as the winner over other perspectives. /10

“Liberal science” paints a simplistic picture of science providing “true statements about reality” to society. This is a positivist view. It’s so 20th century! Simple correspondence theories of truth won’t do anymore as justifications for scientific knowledge. /11

I don’t think “Cynical Theories” is taking postmodern criticisms of “liberal science” quite serious enough. Acknowledging “a kernel of truth” is not enough. It’s easy to ridicule and dismiss. But what about a constructive way forward, instead of a regressive retreat? /12

Because, ultimately, that is what going back to “liberal science” as a cure-all is. A regressive retreat into Neo-positivism. Unfortunately, postmodernism is here to stay. There can be no doubt that scientific knowledge is a social construct, history- and context-dependent. /13

Underdetermination tells us that there is more than one way to explain the world. In an all-pervasive competition with only one winner, those different way are not appreciated, but outcompeted by the dominant view. This is actually bad for scientific progress. /14

It leads to the intellectual monoculture that the natural sciences have become today. What we must do is find a compromise between radical postmodern relativism, and illusions of objectivist realism. That compromise is perspectivism. /15

Perspectivism acknowledge scientific knowledge as a social construct, yet also insists that it *is* possible to establish the relative trustworthiness of empirical knowledge. Not all ways of knowing are the same. Some are clearly better suited to their context than others. /16

On a perspectivist view, science is not based on competition by debate, and also not on dialogue, which is only aimed at understanding the other. It is based on deliberation, where participants establish a compromise for what is the best way forward in a given situation. /17

In perspectivism, knowledge is both situated in its historical and societal context, and can be established as more or less sophisticated and reliable. Some ways of knowing are better in a given situation than others. But there is no one solution that is best across contexts. /18

Neither modernist “liberal science” nor postmodernism are the way forward, but a metamodern perspectival science that takes postmodern criticism serious without drifting into silly relativism (Giere) or flabby pluralism (Bernstein). /19

It is this central point that “Cynical Theories” misses. Just like many others of the “enlightenment now” kind of crowd, who basically see American free-market liberalism as the culmination and end point of history. It is not. /20

In fact, “liberal science” with it’s own blind spot and its naïve positivist take on things is at the very root of many of the confusions that postmodernism is creating right now. And free-market, competitive thinking leads a self-terminating civilisational dynamic. /21

It is not only postmodernism, but also modernist “liberal science” that needs to be overcome. We need a new science for the 21st century. And my bet is, it will be a perspectival one. Let’s go metamodern! Not regress back into modernist stereotypes. /22