A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science [Paperback]

The writing quality in these selections is uniformly good, although some topics may prove difficult for readers unfamiliar with the material. "Superstring" theory, for example, is perhaps the most arcane topic in physics, but Norman Levitt underscores its importance in a finely developed essay on the future of science. Difficult subjects may cause some readers to avoid delving into this collection as being too remote. Never fear - this anthology has urgent value for you. To best understand why, you should read this series starting near the back. Koertge's essay on the impact of postmodernism on education is more than a little frightening. Koertge labels the application of "pomo" on education as "Civilian Casualties", amply demonstrating why this book should receive wide readership. She clearly demonstrates how far ideology attempts, and to some extent succeeds, in distorting the teaching of many fields such as mathematics.

While the essays cover a wide spectrum of topics, a recurring theme is the impact of "feminist" writers. Feminist attacks on science hinge on the dominant role men have played in science in the past. Instead of simply calling for more women to enter research fields, feminist ideologues blitz the entire scientific programme. Koertge and the others here demonstrate that science and mathematics teaching is being politicised. "Feminist science", whatever that is, aims to revise fundamentally how science is done. These essays confirm that ambition is misleading and destructive. Yet, as the collection clearly shows, this objective has permeated North American education and media. "Ethnoscience", a derivative of the feminist ideology and purporting to supplant empirical science methods, is in ascendancy here and elsewhere. Koertge and her colleagues examine and repudiate the underlying concepts of this movement. A telling essay by Meera Nanda shows how postmodernist ideology has invaded the Third World in fomenting bad science in the name of ultra-nationalism and against a perceived "neo-colonialism" from the West. Proponents of "Islamic Science" have openly adopted Western feminist writers in their tactics.

This book is a campaign document, but shouldn't be faulted for that. It is, after all, responding to a crusade eroding three centuries of effort by dedicated researchers and thinkers. Science is fundamental to our daily living, something its transparency leads us to forget. These authors restore the respect science deserves. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

This fine book is based on Alan Sokal's parody published by an allegedly scholarly social journal. Unfortunately for the journal's editors, they did not recognize it as a parody. In the parody, Sokal, a physicist, actually, heaven help us, quoted some of the post-modernists' "findings," that, for example, various conclusions of quantum mechanics--again, far beyond the comprehension of us social scientists--are based on white, male biases, and other nonsense of that ilk. The essays in the book were written by Sokal and other scientists citing particular post-modernists' work, and their dubious conclusions. They're good in describing, for example, the preconceived notions and false assumptions of the post-modernists, and how some "renowned" post-modernists' conclusions are not what they would have found had they followed their own logic. The essays, while eloquent, were written more for those who can understand the math used in the documents that the post-modernists trash.

There is a real talent in being able to translate difficult hard science math and conclusions into lay (non-scientist) terms. It has been done, and there are good magazines ("Astronomy" and "Scientific American" come to mind) that provide examples of it. While the book tries to do this, it can be a little dry for those of us without that hard science/math background. Fortunately, being dry and incomprehensible are not the same thing, so I understood what the authors were saying. And their refutation of the post-modernist balderdash is a blessing.

As to the post-modernists, as a veteran "leftist," I hear their balderdash all the time. Because of it, I've argued for years that the left is its own worst enemy. The (easily refutable) deductions of sexism and the like contribute to the "identity politics" which has limited my fellow progressives to shouting to each other.

I hope someone with the talent to which I already referred can better compile, or summarize the findings illustrated in this volume, so that maybe, just maybe, we can start being rational.

I'd like to give the book five stars even if it might help sell just one. But, as I'm not a "hard scientist" myself, I can't claim to understand everything in the book, and I'll have to limit it to four.

Please, read it, though, and don't be surprised if it opens your eyes to the "arguments" people are using which are swiftly refuted in the book. At least acquaint yourself with the arguments, and use them to confront the Sandra Hardings and their ilk who really haven't a clue what they're talking about.