Yet There Is Method In It

In the OUPbook Postmodernism: a very short introduction, Christopher Butler analyses different themes in postmodernism, particularly its approaches to philosophy, politics and art. In one chapter he considers the postmodern (now reffered to as pomo) approach to science. Generally pomo is characterized as avant garde, anti-realist, irrealist, anti-rational, sceptical and perhaps in some quarters even as anti-science.

The pomo tool of deconstruction when applied to science critically evaluates the role of political and sociocultural influences upon scientific research, funding for the sciences and its technological innovations. A particular focus of concern is concentrated upon weapons development, pollution and industrial exploitation of the worker. A postmodernist critique of science will in general be critical of the notion that the ‘march of science’ equates with progress.

However in Butler’s overview he is generally critical of the pomo approach to science. In fact he appears to support science unconditionally, thus relegating the scope of postmodernism to cultural theory, politics and liberative ethics. This unquestioning adherence to science (for which he doesnt provide a justifying explanation) seems to promote the primacy of deductive reasoning and empirical method over and above all other ways of thinking. Ironically Butler’s pro-science stance would appear to demonstrate what pomo calls the modernist tendency to prejudice. I found this chapter a little hard to swallow as it seems to make an innaccurate generalisation about pomo approaches to science. As is implied in the pomo ‘school of thought’ there is of course no one single approach favoured, thus the anti-science tag would sit uncomfortable with philosophers of science such as Feyerabend and Kuhn, who explicitly accept science as a valid method, but reject its claims to primacy. Such relativistic approaches have sought to legitimise non-scientific and non-rational endeavour (i.e. Religion).

In his chapter, Butler quotes two leading physicists Sokal and Bricmont who responded to the pomo critique. Firstly defending the misuse of some of their work and secondly attacking the pseudo-scientific inclinations of certain philosophers such as Jean Baudrillard. Baudrillard had a tendency in his work to use scientific, or scientific sounding terminology in his writings. Two famous examples were ‘hyperspace‘ and ‘the Euclidian space of war‘. Sokal and Bricmont criticise Baudrillard on two grounds. Firstly it would appear that he is using the terminology in order to give it an air of scientific authority. Secondly, and more misleadingly they accused him of mistaking certain scientific ideas, distorting science, misrepresenting it, and therefore talking unscientific nonsense. This attack was in effect an attack upon the legitimacy of the postmodern critique of science. Butler unquestioningly accepts this attack, I however do not. Baudrillard certainly does use scientific terminology and broaches certain scientific issues. So in response to the critics we must analyse what is happening. There are 3 possibilities.

1) Baudrillard is correct in his use of the terminology, and Sokal and Bricmont are wrong.

2) Baudriallard has redefined the scientific terminology to mean something else. Therefore they only bare a family resemblance to the original meanings of the words, in which case Sokal and Bricmont are at the least mistaken.

3) Baudrillard has misused and misunderstood, or distorted certain scientific concetps. Sokal and Bricmont are right to label this as psuedo-science.

Lets look at the implications of these three possibilities. If 1) is correct then in this case the definitive claims of science are wrong, the edifice has been undermined and science and technology may be about to collapse. I am sceptical about the probability of this outcome (you will be glad to know). If 2) is correct, and I suspect Baudrillard may defend himself along these lines, then the accusations of Sokal and Bricmont are wrong, for they are misunderstood. However Baudrillard does not get such an easy reprieve, for if he has coined new neologisms for old standardly accepted scientific terms, and he has not provided a ready definition then he is responsible for the misunderstanding, and he has done the cause of philosophy a great disservice by creating (rather than destroying) confusion. Finally, if 3) is correct then Baudrillard is guilty of overstepping the barrier between language games and the criticisms levelled against him are justified and correct.

Like I have said, I believe Baudrillard is guilty of causing confusion as opposed to deception. Either way though if in the case of Baudrillard there has been confusion or error then this should not delegitimise the entire pomo approach to science, as Butler would seem to imply. What it does mean is that postmodernists when investigating the epistemological claims of science must be more careful and more vigorous in their critiques. This new sense of caution should not distract pomo philosophers from the fundamentally important task (which is even admitted from within the scientific community) of anlaysing and criticising the sociological and political basis and motivations behind science and scientific research. Particularly where such research has negative technological uses.

Orpheus Emerged, written by Jack Kerouac in 1944/45 was only published posthumously in 2002 following the death of his wife. Friend, Poet and contemporary Robert Creeley wrote in his introduction that this was an momentous occasion, the rediscovery and publication of a lost classic by the ‘voice of a generation’ Beat author Jack Kerouac. Yet despite the positive reviews printed on the dust covers the book was near universally panned by the critics. Dull. Achingly Stiff. Pretentious. Immature. Pedantic. Critics clearly did not like it.

This was the second time I had read this novella, and for the second time I managed to finish it in a couple of hours. And for the second time I was left wondering what was it I had just read. I had my ideas, but I felt somehow cheated that I had read a book, somebody elses creation which was yet so ambigous that its value and meaning depended upon my interpretation of it, as though it were in fact my book. My greatest dissappointment though (first time round) was, like the critics, reserved for the fact that it just wasnt anywhere near as good as Kerouac’s seminal work ‘On The Road‘. Looking for some guidance, and some hint of what it all meant I ploughed the internet for literary criticisms. All I found, as you can see from the perjorative descriptions listed above, were equally confused and disappointed readers.

Orpheus Emerged is the story of a group of young bohemian intellectuals studying at university. It is a chronicle of their passions, conflicts and dreams, and ultimately is a record of their search for truth through art and philosophy.

Michael is the artist, desperately seeking happiness, and wallowing in his own artistic model of the aesthete. He is a bohemian whose poetry infers an experimentation with drugs, a dabbling with mystical religion, and sexual experimentation. Paul (whose relation to Michael is unknown, see later on for my theory) is an out of town bum, with little money, an intellectual who annoys everyone he touches, and yet with whom that cannot do without. He is not registered as a student, but he attends lectures anyway, and the professors politely ignore him until he speaks up and makes his contributions in a class on Nietszche. Arthur, Leo, Anthony and Julius are ensemble characters who weave through the story. Arthur is a budding poet who aspires to Michael’s aesthetic heights. Leo likewise is in awe of Michaels work, but is critically aware of deeper trains of thought. Julius is an observer, and a shrewd one at that, described by the others as a ‘super-voyeur’ he alone guesses at the complex relationship between Michael and Paul. Arthur is an emotional wreck, an alcoholic and a wife beater, married to Marie, who being a more dominant character cares not about the violence, loves Anthony dearly, but seeks to explore her own sexuality in an affair with Michael. Finally Maureen is Michael’s mistress in her late twenties, seeking commintment and security from the young bohemian, she is mature, wise and singularly uninterested in the pretentious artsy world of Michael and his friends.

When you read the book, set over a couple of weeks, nothing much happens, and there is no coherent plot or exploration of character. Chance meetings are always just around the corner and everything seems so utterly contrived. They meet, they eat, they drink copiously, they hold a party, they attend lectures, they talk pretentious waffle about art and philosophy, often subconsciously aware that they dont know what they are talking about. They conduct affairs, they gossip, they suffer emotional crises, they seek oblivian in drink and plumb the depths of despair and talk of suicide.

It is easy considering all this, the shallowness of the characters, the pretentious rubbish that they spout, the numerous references to Nietszche, Rimbaud and other counter-cultural figures in literature, the meandering pace of the plot, to simply say ‘who cares?’

Then I had a revelation. Within the book was hidden a kernel of truth, within the very motif of the search for truth. Michael the poet is frustrated with the aesthetic life, Paul mocks him relentlessly as a failure. Michael is aware of the pretentiousness of much of his work, yet recognises the need to continue as a prophet for the sake of Arthur and Leo (at least). Michael is troubled by his amoral nature in conducting his affair (destroying his relationship with Maureen and near killing Anthony who drinks himself to oblivion), yet as Paul hints at, by being troubled he is clearly not amoral.

Throughout the novel there is one continous battle, between Michael the aesthete and Paul the iconoclast. Michael feels the need to touch God, and to impart in his long winded poetry an essence of the divine. Paul ridicules his work, calls him a failure, enrages him, goads him, steals his work and threatens to burn it. The two of them are constantly at daggers drawn. Michael attacks him with a lampstand, then later when blind drunk and contemplating suicide decides to murder Paul at the same time.

In the novel, which is set in no particular time or place (it could easily be here and now) Kerouac is himself searching for truth. He is looking to find his voice, the voice of a generation. This book is the beginning of the genesis of the beat movement. He wrote it at the end of the second world war, at columbia university shortly after he met Allan Ginsberg, Lucien Carr and the other artists who would become the leaders of the beat movement. It is an early postmodern work of art, it is an existential masterpiece of self-analysis. The movement that was to spawn rock and roll, the hippy movement, pacifism, the anti-war generation and free love, was born out of this novel, this chronicle of existential angst. Dissillusionment with the war and the world, the rejection of authority and conventional morality.

No wonder Orpheus Emerged reads so badly, it is unfinished, its merely a particle of the developing Kerouac. Too caught up in the real world who has been there to teach Kerouac how to write? Nobody has, he has had to develop all by himself, find his own voice, his own identity. As he says of Wagner in the novel, he has had to spend years sorting out his intellectual grounding before he can produce his art.

Who is Paul? My reading is that he is the alter-ego of Michael, his shadowself. He has a ghostly ethereal character to him. When Michael disappears for a week (conducting his affair) Paul leaves town and ‘sleeps on the grass and eats fruit for breakfast’. When Michael reappears so does Paul. When one goads the other, the other always responds ready for a fight. When Michael falls ill with a fever (at the climax of the novel) so too does Paul. Michael never attends lectures, but Paul does. And the greatest hint, when Michael resolves to commit suicide he decides he can only do so after killing Paul. In the end, Michael storms to Pauls apartment, wherein is the mythical ‘Helen’ a character about whom we know nothing about, other than she is the love of both of them. Helen and Paul are seen catching the streetcar and leaving town. This scene witnessed by Arthur, Leo and Julius concludes the novel, and they like the reader are left uncertain who the man is, Michael or Paul? The shrew observer Julius, earlier concludes that Paul must be Michaels brother, so we can assume some physical resemblance between the two.

In conclusion I see that the book is much deeper than many critics give it credit for. Yes it is poor in comparison to his other works, but it is meant to be, it is an existential biography in which Kerouac embarks on a sincere quest to find his own voice.

Michael, the artist-man, wants to achieve literary perfection, Paul his shadowself mocks and scorns his efforts, such perfection cannot be achieved by affecting the habits and manners of great artists, it can only be found in self-discovery. The search for truth can only be resolved by being true to oneself. Michael and Paul are meant to be the same character, shadows of each other, Michael and Paul are Jack Kerouac. Their struggles are his struggles. This work is the chronicle of his existential journey. It is through this existential journey, through writing this book, that Kerouac can begin to find his true voice. Jack Kerouac is Orpheus Emerged, and once he has found himself the mature writer, the writer for whom the critics are full of praise, can finally emerge.

Taking no more than two hours, its an easy read. But (and it took me a long period of contemplation) you may feel as though you have witnessed nothing of any import. I cannot recommend this book on its own merit. But can recommend it as a source for contemplative guidance in the existential sense. Michael and Paul remind me very much of me at the same age.

It is commonly said now that we live in a postmodern age or situation. This literally means that we no longer live in the modern age, or the age of modernity.  Some of my thoughts have been described (by myself and AC-1) as being postmodern. What does this entail? The following is a brief outline of the major principles. But first a caveat: in common with the applicable definition of postmodernism, my explanation is but one of many, supporters (Jacques Derrida) and opponents (Richard Dawkins) alike may offer a differing description to the one that I provide.

Why Postmodernity. This is a reference to the abandonment of modernity, which occured through a loss of confidence in its values. This loss of confidence followed instances of global trauma that blighted the 20th century; fascism, communism, world war, terrorism, the holocaust, ethnic cleansing, nuclear weapons, pollution, the unjust effects of science and industry, trivialisation of life, racism and sexism. Postmodernism infers that modernity took an arrogant view of premodernity that was unjustified and wrong. It explicitly states that: Change does not mean Progress. Postmodernism has directed a near revolutionary suspicion towards three facets of human existence.

• Our collective understanding of ourselves in history.
• Our personal understanding of ourselves.
• The values of Reason and Rationality.

We, Ourselves, in History. Multiple areas of thought (including Philosophy, Theology, History, Science, Literature etc.) have attempted to make sense of life in the context of an overarching history or drama. “The story of man”. Such stories take the form of metanarratives, take for example the Marxist critique of Capitalism, or the Christian concept of the consummation of history. These stories share one thing in common, namely that human history is a story of progress and improvement. Culminating in the idea that the modern is a better time and place to be than the pre-modern or the primitive. And that those cultures and societies that are yet to be fully modernised (pre-industrial) are primitive and inferior, have nothing to teach us and would be better off modernising and embracing science, capitalism, democracy, marxism, monotheism or whatever value system is in vogue.

Postmodernists suspect that such metanarratives are devices whereby the powerful impose views of reality which serve their own interests. Consider the motivations for the U.S. led invasion of Iraq; both those publicly expressed (regime change/weapons of mass destruction) and those privately suspected by the common person (oil, increased funding to the defence industry). The Postmodernist (similar to and in common with the Existentialist) lay their stress upon the fragmentary and absurd nature of experience and history.

Who am I, the Self? The notion of a coherent and identifiable self is rejected. And a fragmentary interpretation is adopted. Me, I, the Self are terms we use to attempt to describe differing pressures that affect our experience of life; historically by ones genetic inheritance, internally by virtue of your unconscious and subconscious mind, and externally by virtue of coincidence and circumstanc. Thus the idea of who I am, and of what constitutes the self, differs from person to person, across continents, and over time. Me, I and the Self are therefore arbitrary and unfixed inventions.

Knowledge is Power. One of the fundamental expressions of postmodernity is its suspicion and loss of confidence in reason and rationality. It is seen (like the metanarrative) as an exercise in control and domination. Rational argument and debate are seen as weapons of manipulation, that can easily be used by powerful groups for the furtherance of their own ends. Such groups control education, the direction of academic research, the means of communication. These groups use rationality and reason to establish criteria as to what counts as knowledge, who can be considered authoritative (consider the case of scientific ‘experts’ being called to give witness in legal proceedings, particularly where two experts disagree) and what is regarded as being conceivable or even true.

Postmodernists pay particular attention to language. Does it refer to reality (picture theory of words, Wittgensteins Tractatus) or is it rhetoric in the service of power and control (propaganda, Wittgensteins Language Games). The problem with language is that without an ability to identify reality and to create a trustworthy shared world of meaning, reasoning is impossible.

Consequences of Postmodernity. Include the rehabilition of premodernism and so called primitive societies. Consequently this results in an interdisciplinary ‘method’ of thinking. And ultimately provides a critique that challenges the notion that change is progress and that we should always be on-guard against a cultural superiority complex.

Chad Varah was the founder of the Samaritans, a charity that espoused listening therapy for the suicidal and despairing.

When founded in 1953, suicide was still viewed as a symptom of mental illness and moral depravity, Varah preffered to view it as a symptom of circumstance, whose genesis in individuals could vary for enormous reasons.

He was motivated to found this charity when as a newly ordained priest in the Anglican church he conducted a funeral for a 13 year old girl who had committed suicide upon experiencing her first menstrual cycle. Uninformed about adolescence and sexual development she had assumed it to be a symptom of a sexually transmitted disease and in despair and shame, took her own life. He vowed from that moment to help all people in despair and to offer therapeutic advice on sexual matters without judgement or condemnation.

Consequently upon founding the movement, named by the media after the ‘Good Samaritan’ of Christian scriptures he established certain fixed rules.

• The Charity was to be secular.
• It’s therapy was to be listening based.
• It’s members were to be taken from all branches of society.
• They should be neither “prudish” nor “preachy” as the problems they would encounter would be of an extremely personal nature, and the aim of the therapy was to listen to the person in need, and not to lecture them.

Chad Varah, mirroring Augustine of Hippo centuries before, freely admitted in his biographies to sexual experimentation before his marriage and his ordination in the church. This he saw as giving him an insight into the angsts and emotions encountered by those who suffered turmoil in an age where sex and sexuality was never openly discussed. He was an advocate of open and thorough sex education. And in later life whilst continuing to minister as a priest he also sat on the board of reference for the Adult magazine ‘Forum’.

He died aged 95 on the 7th November 2007, if not a “saint” as classically defined then perhaps a “model” and “Iconic” figure of the postmodern-paradigm.

Many philosophical and religious movements have divided the world between our thoughts and the external world of the senses. The world of logic and there fore thought was considered pure while the senses where thought to lie. This was expressed famously by Descartes and his idea of dualism.

But this has an earlier precedent of shamanic religions and founders of religions having direct access to spirits. The unseen world was thought to cause good harvests, fertility and victory in war. In these religious systems, the shaman has direct access to the metaphysical world. In the observed world, the spirits where invisible because our senses are not capable of seeing them (at least outside certain rituals inducing trace like states).

With the rise of various monotheistic religions, the world of divine beings and insight into the metaphysical world is promised to the good believer. For example the Christian teaching that good people shall go to heaven.

“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” Matthew 5:8. “Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self; the heavenly by the love of God.” St. Augustine.

These views are still propagated by a strict interpretation of Catholicism and most evangelical movements.

Modernist and progressive religious belief has rather less emphasis on metaphysical causes impacting on our physical world. God is not normally considered to have taken a direct hand in our lives but people believe he is standing on the sidelines watching over us. This thought of the metaphysical world is a comfort to many people but the metaphysical world is not directly accessible.

“Happy are they that have not seen, and yet believe.” John 20:29 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty” 1 Corinthians 1:27

Now the metaphysical world can be considered in the context of post-modernism and anti-realism. Idealists, in particular, hold that only our thoughts have reality and a mind independent reality is an illusion. There is no concept in anti-realism that actually causes anything in the physical world – since the physical world is an illusion or just part of our personal interpretation. I would ask, what does anti-realism, as an explanation, actually explain? If there is no rains to summon, no paradise waiting or no God to comfort us (at least according to the axiom of anti-realism: there is no world of the senses), then this idea is redundant. Or to put more directly, if Anti Realism – effectively saying “nothing is externally true” – has any truth (and there fore it is externally true), it is self refuting. (If Anti Realism is only subjectively true, then again, it is not universally true. But I already said that in a previous post.)

Since I do not agree with Anti-realism, what remains? The world of our lying senses? No – because the “true” world of thought was a myth the whole time!

Major disclaimer: the skeleton of this argument is a rehash of Nietzsche chapter called ‘How the “True World” Finally Became A Fable‘ but I did bring it up to date and add examples.

Anti Citizen One

PS. I am now thinking this is an unoriginal argument for several reasons but perhaps interesting in context. I was considering Descartes thoughts on dream worlds and the unreliability of the senses – but is not our own thoughts also distorted in dreams? For example, doubting things in dreams that we would consider true normally? Doubt is there fore unreliable. Conclusion: there is no dualism. I don’t think I read that idea anywhere… (but still someone else probably said it first!)

I was initially annoyed at Feyerabend but then I do agree with him in some limited areas. The length of this post is perhaps due to my personal interest in science. My thought experiment was to highlight the main area of disagreement and also to discover your views.

My value statement of science – we ought to value accurate predictions of the physical world over inaccurate predictions – is explicitly denied by Wittgenstein, Feyerabend and post-modernism, as I understand them. “My German engineer [Wittgenstein], I think, is a fool. He thinks nothing empirical is knowable – I asked him to admit that there was not a rhinoceros in the room, but he wouldn’t.” (Betrand Russell). I provisionally accept there is not a rhinoceros in the room. Of course, I might discover that rhinoceros can shape shift but so far I have not observed that. In fact, the feeling that there is not a rhinoceros in the room is more real to me than any tricks of language or vague philosophical notions (“here is a hand“, etc). Nietzsche said to deny the physical/actual world, you would also be throwing out any basis for truth or knowledge. ‘[T]he “true world” has been constructed out of contradiction to the actual world: … insofar as it is merely a moral-optical illusion’. (Twilight of the Idols)

I tend to think that, although the physical world seems to exist, we can’t find a basis to attach values to non-physical belief systems. But this is hardly original – it’s just existentialism. I regard your interpretation of LW and F as more post-modern than my point of view. At least we can say “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” (Einstein)

“I think the main area of thought is the principle of induction, which is widely supported in empiricism, and which Feyerabend attempts to dismiss.”

I am not sure induction is used in an unquestioning manner in science. If I said “All observed crows are black there fore all crows are black” in philosophy, it would be a potentially incorrect generalization. If in science, I say “All observed crows are black and I will formulate a theory of the blackness of crows”, that is not a generalization because at any moment we might discover a green crow.

We may say “the scientific law of X can never be broken”, which implies we have used inductive reasoning but it is really a lazy simplification of saying “the theory of X has never been disproved and I don’t expect you can too”. Basically, the provisional nature of scientific theories avoids the generalization of inductive reasoning.

“I’d further develop this by saying that a method that makes no predictions of situational outcomes is of less calue than any method (accurate or inaccurate) that does.”

Very deliberately, I made no mention of metaphysics in my thought experiment (or rather I separate it and then made no comment on it – like early Wittgenstein). I am actually surprised you do accept what is essentially the falsification principle at all! What I was trying to say was the value of predictive theories should only be compared to other predictive theories. I am trying to avoid putting a value on non-predictive theories (which you, F and LW would instantly reject).

This is my current view: empiricism has a very restricted (i.e. physical) scope but it is more valuable within that scope than other views. (Remember when I was at a loss over thinking of a disproof of naturalism? lol)

“Feyerabend proposes that to follow one method to the exclusion of others is
a) not very progressive thinking, and
b) contrary to the ‘experience’ of science history …”
I avoided directly talking about methods in my thought experiment but you could say to produce hypotheses, you need one or more methods. I disagree that within science (or more precisely empiricism), has ever changed it’s view on my “ought statement”. It has always valued a more accurate predictive theory over the less accurate. I would agree with Feyerabend that many methods should be employed to produce theories, but the value assessment is constant in my humble opinion.

“Feyerabend is concerned with the smug attitude of some science.”
Feyerabend is correct if he is referring to some popular perceptions of science or particular scientists but the core principle of science does not necessarily imply smugness. Unless all scientists are smug. Are you accusing me of being smug?

‘An attitude that could be characterised as saying “we are the only ones that know the answers, and we will share them with you, if you accept our ways.”‘
That is the way science is sometimes perceived but this is of course NOT what science should be about. In fact, science should be the opposite! I can’t find the exact Nietzsche quote, but he talked about the need to reject past theories as insufficient (what he called a “holy nay”) as requirement to write new theories. If science is really dogma, it would be impossible to progress science because we could not question anything.

So, if Feyerabend is criticizing the institutional nature of science we all might be in agreement. Criticising the core value (of accurate predictions are better) of science is laughable – but the anti-realist viewpoint does specifically deny this! (boo hiss to post-modernism when there is an overlap)

“Has a rational method, that functions to guarantee the objectivity of its results.”
Of course, science is more a method for eliminating error rather than guaranteeing correctness.

“And that it, exclusively, produces useful results.”
Exclusively in the physical domain, I believe it does. To disagree with that is anti-realist (which is a valid point of view I guess).

“Feyerabend says that we can see clearly enough that Newtonian mechanics, though ridden with anomalies, took a very long time to get rid of them.” (And allegedly shows science prefers inaccurate theories.)
This is straw man argument in my opinion. All scientific theories to date have what I call “scope”. The scope of a theory is usually stated in the theory itself. For example, Newtonian mechanics does not explain nuclear fusion. It is obvious that no scientific theory has been able to explain everything. (Although this is a goal of some scientists, but that is another story.)

A thought experiment on how scope works:
Scientist A: I have a theory X which explains A, B and C.
Scientist B: Actually, I have some new data which shows that theory X does not explain C in particular circumstances Z.
Scientist A: Um, ok I have to restrict the scope of my theory. It explains A, B and C when C is not in Z.
*a few days later*
Scientist A: I have revised my theory again. It is now called X’ and it explains A, B and C in both “Z” and “not Z”.
Scientist C: Nice. But X’ is more complicated in X. In fact if you assume “not Z”, theory X’ reduces into X. Since I only an interest in “not Z” conditions, I am going to stay using X on the understanding it only applies to “not Z”.
Scientist A: Ok.
Science teacher: Ok with me too. Also since it is easier students to understand X before learning X”, I will teach X first.
An example: X is Newtonian gravity.
A is the fall of objects on Earth
B is nothing in this example
C is the orbit of the planets
Z is orbits close to the Sun (to be exact the perihelion precession of Mercury)
X’ is Einstein’s general relativity.
Conclusion: The persistence of Newtonian mechanics is good enough for most applications and easier to understand than relativity. It is not unscientific to use a theory as long as it is within the scope that it agrees with the physical world.

[the rationalist reconstruction of science argues] “[t]he state should teach science uncritically because it is the one true way.”
I have tried to outline how the direct alternative to science is anti-realism. I imagine most science teachers could not do a lesson on anti-realism without being sarcastic! (But I don’t mean to imply that is what you recommend.) My preference would be to teach what science should be about (keeping an open mind and an empirical basis) and what it should not be about (pseudo-science or dogmatic thinking).

Interesting discussion though. I have some thoughts on tacit acceptance and rejection of science, and the implication of overlap in world views with empiricism, about which I am currently brooding.

Anti Citizen One