Received: from mole.uvm.edu (mole.uvm.edu [132.198.103.240])
          by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with SMTP
	  id GAA04716 for <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 06:25:53 -0700 (MST)
Received: by mole.uvm.edu; id AA08129; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:30:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:30:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Cavrak <sjc@mole.uvm.edu>
To: Sociology Graduate Students -- International <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re:  Postmodern Philosophy of Science: A Brief Tutorial
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971026063904.2def6118@pop.uvm.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.93.971026081747.26757F-100000@mole.uvm.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, TR Young wrote: Why Post-modern???
 
	I would prefer, as do you, dthat we treat this
	new  science as advanced or a more complete
	version of modern science...but remember,
	'modern' comes from  modo...meaning that which
	is current today...

Part of the problem comes from the confusion of any 
language - especially a written one - "This Modern
World" may be an appropriate title when a book is
written, but a century later it's ancient history.

Post-modernism got it's big kick in the late 50's
with the Pop-art movement which set itself against
the Modern artists of the 30's and 40's. Its name
became famous with Robert Venturi, an architect who
led the assult against the Modern-ist "Less is More"
with "A building is duck" and tied that with the
sobrique "Post-Modern". 

There's an interesting essay on the Duck at ...

http://www.newsday.com/az/bigduck.htm


where we find that the Duck is as old as the 
Modernist architecture it is held to destroy,
illustrating again, TR's claim that it takes
a while for society to catch up with history.

Steve