X-Message-Number: 19177
From: "Mark Plus" <>
Subject: Re: Why no fundamental advances in physics?
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:45:57 -0700

In Message #19168, David Stodolsky writes,

>Social constructionism at its foundation is extremely conservative, fascist 
>according to some published work. Given that it is a methodologically 
>flawed, its easy for its proponents to come to any conclusion whatsoever. 
>These conclusions tend to support the current power holders and dominant 
>social views.

I was under the impression that social constructionism (a.k.a. 
Postmodernism) arose among Leftist intellectuals as a tool for undermining 
the supposedly objective authority structures of capitalist societies.

E.g., link to:


I wouldn't be surprised if its appeal jumped between ideological opposites, 
however.  The extreme Left and the extreme Right tend to converge on certain 
issues because both groups oppose some of the same aspects of the 
Enlightenment and modernity, though for different reasons.  (Just look at 
the strange coalition forming against cloning.)

>How could such nonsense become important within science? My theory is that 
>science has undermined the traditional shields against death anxiety, the 
>dominant religious views, to such an extent that they don't do the job for 
>most people. Therefore, an attack on science is a welcome relief to 
>traditionalists. Now they can go back to believing in the judgement day, 
>reincarnation, etc., since science is "just another story."

The Left and the Right are both threatened by the prospect of Transhumanity 
and its "engineered negligible senescence," as Aubrey de Grey phrases it.  
Transhumanism is generally orthogonal to the traditional axis of ideological 
false alternatives which arose in historical contexts now threatened with 

Mark Plus

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19177