Reflection on the Production of Knowledge: From Postmodernism to Pseudoscience

Daud Aris Tanudirjo

doi:10.22146/jh.22559

Reflection on the Production of Knowledge: From Postmodernism to Pseudoscience

https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.22559

Daud Aris Tanudirjo^(1*)

(1) Universitas Gadjah Mada
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

In the last few years, the Indonesian government has impelled academics and higher education institutions as the centre of knowledge production to publish their works in reputed international journal. This policy is necessary to elevate the position of Indonesian higher education institution in the World University Rankings. In fact, such a policy will not only have impact on the status of the higher education institution but also in the course of human culture and society. This article tries to reflect on the impact of the implementation of the policy in the wider cultural context. Predictably, new knowledge will only be circulated among the elite academics and the higher education institutions will become inaccessible ivory tower for the society. On the other hand, the society will tend to consume more pseudoscientific knowledge which is more attractive and easier to understand. Ultimately this will have a significant impact on the course and quality of human culture.

Keywords

Indonesian government policy, knowledge production, postmodernism, pseudoscience, scientific work

Full Text:

PDF

References

Aylesworth, G. (2015). Post-modernism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the latest revised version 5 February 2015. (http://plato.stanford. edu/index.html).

Beyerstein, B.L. (1996). Distingushing Science to Pseudoscience. An article prepared for the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development Victoria Canada.

Chomsky, N. (2011). How the World Works. Hamish Hamilton.

Crook, S. (1991). Modernist Radicalism and Its Aftermath. Routledge.

Faucoult, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Tavistock Publisher.

Frederick, J. (1984). Foreword, in Lyotard, J.F. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester University Press, p. vii - xxi

Hansson, S.O. (2014). Science and Pseudo-science. Stanford Centre for the Study of Language and information.

Hazelkorn, E. (2009). The problem with university rankings. (http://SciDevNet/global/education/opinion/ the problem-with-university-ranking. 11 M a r c h 2 0 0 9 ) .

Hodder, I. (1991). Post-modernism, post-structuralism, and post-processual archaeology, in Ian Hodder (ed.) The Meaning of things. London: Harper Collins.

Luxbacher, G. (2013). World university rankings: how much influence do they really have? The Guardian, 10 September 2013 (http://amp. theguardian.com 10 September 2013)

Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester University Press. Translated from French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.

Nikkel, D. (nd). Discerning the Spirits of Modernity and Postmodernity, Tradition & Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, 33:1, 8 – 26.

Peursen, C.A. (1976). Strategi Kebudayaan. Penerbit Kanisius – BPK Gunung Mulia.

Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge Classic.

Raff, J. (2013). What’s the difference between science and pseudo-science? Violence Metaphores. (http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/05/17/ whats-the-difference-between-science-and-pseudo-science).

Robbins, R.H. (2009). Cultural Anthropology: A problem-based approach. Cengage Advantage Books.

Sokal, A.D. (2004). Pseudo-science and Post-modernisme: Antagonist or Fellow Travelers? in G. Fagan (ed.), Archaeology Fantasies: How Pseudo-archaeology Misrepresents the Past and Mislead the Public Routledge.

Sorgner, H. (2015). Challenging expertise: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on scientific authority and public participation, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, xxx (2015), p. 1 – 7.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.22559