The SCIENCE thread

More emininent professors

madprofesor.jpg


DSCN0461.JPG
 
Maqus said:
And finally, Jacques Derrida died a couple of days ago, R.I.P., Father of Deconstruction.

No bad jokes please.


"DECONSTRUCTING MURDER
This weekend, 14-year-old Byron Lee was shot to death while riding his bike near Stanford and 81st Street in South LA. There were two shooters. According to witnesses, the shooters moved up on Lee after he was down and continued firing as he was on his knees and apparently pleading for them not to shoot him anymore. He was hit eighteen times.


This shooting reminded me of an incident in Kody Scott's book MONSTER. Kody mentions that he once shot a kid off his bike but doesn't reveal the aftermath. He doesn't mention if he killed the kid or winged him or crippled him for life. Scott also states that he shot a lot of "civilians," his term for people who were not ganged up or associates. And Scott never expressed much remorse.

If Lee's killers are ever caught and decide to write a best seller about shooting people, you have to wonder if they'll receive the same level of acclaim that Scott gets from academics and the media. His book is on the reading list of Race, Class and Gender classes all over the country. The LA Times called Monster, "one of the most disturbingly authentic triumphs of the human spirit ever executed in print."

The same weekend that Lee was executed brought the news that Jacques Derrida died of cancer. Derrida was the father of Deconstructionism, a "philosophy" much in vogue among university professors. The basic belief of this philosophy is that nothing can be known. Certainty is an illusion. It's impossible to pass judgment because reality is nothing more than personal narrative and subjective experience. The personal narrative of the shooters is as valid and free of disapprobation as that of Byron Lee's. In the world of intellectual discourse, shooter and victim are neither guilty or innocent.

The wide acceptance of Monster and other criminal confessionals is rooted in the nonsense of Deconstructionism. A clever professor could prove to Byron's mother that her son wasn't executed while begging for his life. It's just her subjective experience of the event. That professor can also prove that true justice could never be dished out to the shooters.

You could dismiss this nonsense if it were merely isolated to the classroom and lecture hall, the modern equivalent of ancient religious scholars discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The truth is, a lot of this Decon attitude permeates the media, the babbling class and even the criminal justice system. It leads to some horrific consequences. Defense lawyers leaking information to their clients about potential prosecution witnesses. Or academics being brought in as expert witnesses to prove that a visual ID of a shooter is beyond the capacity of the victims. And it even leads to defense lawyers covering up a shooter's tattoos with makeup during a trial to foil a positive ID. After all, guilt is a social construct that exists merely in the unenlightened mind. Intellectuals know better.

These true believers in the absolute impossibility of guilt or innocence, good or evil also show up on juries and are playing merry hell with criminal cases. More on that at another time."
 
Bambi said:
"DECONSTRUCTING MURDER"

That's really strange, I'm in the middle of the break of the lit. theory class, the topic is Derrida and deconstructionalism, I wish you could bring that stuff in and we could discuss it. I'm gonna print it now, I have one answer, but that'd be too long to type now and it should be boring too. We'll see.
 
Alwin said:
nice one - although it's tempting to agree with Feyerabend here, I do think a paradigm is valuable in the sense that it yields a framework within which scientists can discuss their work
You're not wrong. Still, the message that kids should take home is "Don't do as they tell you in methodology class" because it makes life more interesting and allows you to revolutionize a few paradigms. And who wouldn't want kids to have that. :)
 
Bambi wouldn't :D

What else did them poor kids do but revolutionize the good old deconstructionist paradigm? :lol:
 
Bambi said:
theres no discussion, deconstrcutionalism kills kiddies. end of story. fucking intellectuals.

So, besides the fact that that text is a total misunderstanding of the point of deconstructionalism, it still made me think about the possibility of ethical systems, poor Derrida made this whole thing up cause he saw where the world wars led to, the big humanist ethos ended up in absolute destruction, now where's the übersystem of progress? So he said it's a myth, but he really had an agenda with his stuff, he wanted to make the world a better place by trying to make people see that the systems are bullshit. But if there's no system, how could he still feel there's something wrong with it morally??? If morality is a system, and the systems are falling apart, where does morality come from?
 
It's like we're in a box and that's it :D nothing hard, you just won't get out of the box, all you can do is put some nice wallpaper on it and make you believe it's flowers and you'll never die.