Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt

Book Overview

With the emergence of "cultural studies" and the blurring of once-clear academic boundaries, scholars are turning to subjects far outside their traditional disciplines and areas of expertise. In... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0801847664
• ISBN13: 9780801847660
• Release Date: January 1994
• Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press
• Length: 352 Pages
• Weight: 1.45 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 6.3" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

Still relevant after all these years...

Academic fads have a startlingly brief lifespan: Last year's new thing is supplanted by this year's new thing, which promises to transgress all previous boundaries and explode the oppressive partiarchal paradigms that are crushing the unprivileged. Everything that lies under the vague umbrella of "postmodernism" is one of those this-year's-new-things. But most of those academic fads didn't really go away; that's why, even though it was published in 1998, this is an important and still-relevant book. Gross and Levitt examine and systematically demolish a number of postmodernism's anti-science subspecies. In a way, this amounts to no more than swatting at a swarm of annoying academic insects; Gross and Levitt are genuine scientists, so, unlike the academic postmodernists, they are good at analyzing data and presenting logical arguments. And that's what they do, devastatingly and humorously. It seems unlikely that a densely footnoted and referenced academic study could be laugh-out-loud funny, but this book is. However, there's something important here, too. That is that the academic postmodernists' attacks on science have a cumulative harmful effect of deflecting young people away from real science, confusing the scientifically illiterate public about scientific and technological principles and policies, and, most dangerously of all, creating the impression that science is just one of several possible "ways of knowing," all of which are equally valid. No, they're not. The plain fact is that science works; it accurately describes physical reality. Diverting intellectual effort and research money to the study of alternative "ways of knowing" is wasteful and academically bankrupt. Read this book. It's still relevant and important. And it's very, very funny.

MUST be required reading for all college freshmen!

Once upon a time there was a movement known as "progressive." Its proponents were well-educated and called for things one would expect an educated person to advocate, like equality, freedom, and opportunity. Then something happened, and the academy begat the post-modernists who refute science, and propose "alternatives." The world will never be the same.This is one of the best books in my rather extensive library! Needless to say when the authors first wrote it, they were called tools of the capitalist right wing, sexist/racist/homophobic and assorted cliches of dubious objectivity. Early in the text while acknowledging that they're not historians, they reviewed the history of the "left" in the U.S. It seems that many who considered themselves "left" in the 1960s and 1970s--particularly the extremists, who defended, for instance, that sample of politico-economic virtue, Mao's cultural revolution--found that there were few places they fit outside of academe. So that's where they ended up. I add that once there, these individuals found that their expertise was limited; in an era in which physics, math, engineering and the like have become extremely complex, the epitome of the "educated," those with expertise in social sciences found themselves overshadowed by what appeared to be their more intelligent, hard science counterparts. These poor, downtrodden academics then started making a name for themselves by using multi-syllable words to say nothing. And that's the backbone of this book. I disagree with one critic who accused the authors of being too sardonic in their language. I think they could probably have been much moreso toward the nonsense they criticize. I mean, feminist algebra? As the authors indicate, the point of such a subject--without the allegedly political qualifier--is not to indicate the cultural role of men and women referred to in the text, but to get the right answer. If there is a "feminist medicine," remind me to never partake of its practitioners; I'd rather the physician know what she's talking about than to use ideological assumptions on my health.Then there's AIDS. The extreme of the post-modernists insists that AIDS is a vast, white conspiracy genocidally eliminating black victims. That it is brought about by a virus on which much is known doesn't discourage this sort of dogma. But even the more "moderate" post-modernists seem to think that AIDS will be hampered if only society's patriarchal, authoritarian rhetoric is changed, like society's ostensible norms are more responsible for the disease than the virus!The day before reading the chapter on the radical environmentalists, I was at a meeting in Washington, DC in which I commented that the persons there were remarkably "apocalyptic." The authors used exactly the same word toward the "radical environmentalists," referring to the very same periodical discussed at that meeting! And they confirm what I've noted for some years, that these movements are of the same zeal and e

Deflating Postmodernism

I am not into forcing people to read books, but if I were, this book would be near the top of my "must-read" books. Gross/Levitt's in-depth analysis of several of the current trends in sociological writing about science and the lamentable rise of pseudoscience (e.g., Afrocentrism, Difference Feminism) hits the nail on the head. They demonstrate very convincingly the handshake between the radical right and the left when it comes to fighting rationalism. Their final example of "upmanship" (pp. 243f) - the relationship between the Sciences and the Humanitities - is essentially correct, and the level of scientific knowledge among students of sociology, contemporary linguistics, or political science is deplorable. In my opinion this is because the "hard" sciences are exactly that - hard (although *nothing* can be harder than reading sense into a postmodernistic text). And when it comes to the "power" of "deconstructing" things and "demonstrating that science is just a social construct", this is simply wishful thinking.

In a hyped world of "important books," this really IS one.

"Higher Superstition" is a must read for anyone who has suffered through the lunatic whiney mamma's boys [of either gender]who pimp that French Marxist superstition called "deconstruction." Jacques Lacan surely must be chuckling to himself each night when he hears how many delicate, high-strung professors actually believe his deconstruction nonsense about Shakespeare --and now about science-- and about how many intense, immature, nervous graduate students waste perfectly good air and caffeine debating the finer points (as if there were any!)of his merde de cheval. "Higher Superstition" gives Lacan et al a long overdue, richly deserved kick in the behind as it reinforces what HC Andersen said about the Emperor's being naked.

Excellent! Much needed dissection of popularized stupidity.

This book raises several very interesting points about the current anti-scientific, anti-rational movement in some parts of academia and elsewhere.The main point of the book is that, in order for one to dissect science, one must USE SCIENCE!This singular truth is very often ignored by some science-illiterate in academia (and elsewhere) today as they try to foster their socio-political agendas.The real danger (as the authors point out), is not in some social "science" faculty in (presumably) forward thinking schools fostering their antirational ideas upon students, but rather the overall harmful effect as these kinds of sloppy magical thinking permeate to the rest of society, and even become an acceptable norm (even more than now!).Being educated used to mean something, whether one was educated in the arts or the sciences (for a time, they were one and the same). But without the ability and the desire to examine the world in a logical, consistent (and dare we hope scientific) manner, "education" becomes worthless. If the sole job of the "liberal arts" faculty is to pass off opinion, heresay, conjecture and other forms of nonsense as the gospel truth, where does it lead? If one only teaches about the urgent need to fight for a particular political agenda, what is being done besides "brainwashing" the hapless student into becoming a soldier in some imagined war? The authors present several pieces of advice to potential "social critics."It is not enough to merely pass off cute metaphores and analogies in proving one's point - no matter how clever they are . If one plans on examining some (perceived) critical problem (social, political economical, ecological etc..) also present POSSIBLE WORKABLE SOLUTIONS! Pointing fingers at "Da Man" and breast-beating of the injustice of it all - solves nothing.It is NOT acceptable to create fictitious fables and coin them as historical facts.The only drawback for the book i! s in its writing style. Perhaps readability of the book for the general (non academia) audience would be improved by a new edition without the excruciating snobbish highbrow tone. This important issue concerns everyone, not just academia, and definitely not just scientists.Science WORKS, and does not depend on one's faith.