Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism Paperback – December 7, 2007

This book is a reply to a widely-accepted relativism about knowledge, which is almost the default view at universities and colleges. It is aimed at readers with some college, and is accessible to anyone with only a slight acquaintance with philosophy. It is much more sympathetic to relativism than other books opposing relativism, and more sophisticated. The book distinguishes three kinds of relativism. Different societies might construct different worlds, they might different views of evidence, or they might have different views of rational explanation. Boghossian disposes of each of these in turn. Why read it? First, it tries very hard to be easy to understand, and to presume nothing. It mostly succeeds, but you do need to know what philosophers mean by "logic" (page 126 - it's not what ordinary people mean by that word) and "modus ponens" (page 72). These were the only two slip-ups I could find though, and everything else is very clearly explained. Be warned though, you do need to concentrate. At college level, this is an easy book; but that's at college level. Second, it's careful and sophisticated. It doesn't make fun of relativism (some books do), or sneer. One common reply to relativism is that the relativist must presume that he, the relativist, can understand and explain the multiple social perspectives. So he must exempt himself from depending upon his own social perspective. But this exemption is really saying that relativism is false, and we can escape from our own social perspective. Boghossian replies to this on behalf of his relativist opponent, when it would have been easy for him to add it to his list of replies. It is *very* difficult to write a book with both these advantages. This is a real achievement. It would make an excellent introductory text in epistemology (theory of knowledge). It explains the basics of the topic using an interesting debate. If Boghossian is right, we'd have to change many of our attitudes.

This is a good book. It is clear and well written. If you are a "philosophy person" you will understand this without any problem. If you do not know about the subject matter, you will have to "dig in " and work a little to understand this. It is a very important topic, one that influences every aspect of our lives. From evolution, to creationism, to religion to politics, relativism undermines the basic framework of our civilization. How can we make decisions if the basis of our knowledge is relative? How can there be any justice system if there is no agreement on an absolute way of investigating and concluding issues? Is it possible for something to be true for one person and false for another person, because they have different cultural back-grounds? Does gravity work differently, depending on your culture? Where can we say, this "blank" is true for everyone? Read this book if you are interested. The author has a very strong opinion on this, so be "fore-warned".

Is there such a thing as objective facts? Most would say yes, but there are those who take a different view and who think what we perceive as facts and how we construct knowledge has everything to do with culture and other conditions. There is no doubt that our culture influences what we think and believe, but does it mean that plain, evident, in- your- face truth is still relevant to the individual and his/her circumstances? A book that is ready to challenge this notion is Fear of Knowledge.Short in length, this philosophical guide presents some of the common arguments in favor of relativism and constructivism and shows why they are not true. For someone like me, who is already against these two schools of thought, this book was a classic example of preaching to the choir. However, I did like some of the refutations it offers, and it did provide me some ammunition to use whenever someone tries to spout off in favor of these constructs.This philosophical book will make the most sense to students of philosophy and others who already have a basic understanding of relativism and constructivism. If you do not, it might be good to consult a reputable online source and gain an understanding before you start to read. In fact, the book could have been improved by explaining and defining relativism and constructivism better than it does. I did like some of the examples it suggests, to help readers put things into perspective. But given the increased use of relativism and constructivism over the past few years, I can think of many better, real- world examples it could have used. In addition to explaining these concepts better, I also felt the book would have been improved if it spent more time showing why objectivism is correct. It instead devotes most of its space to explaining why the other side is wrong.With the writing, Fear of Knowledge is good and generally free from errors, but it isn’t a book for light, easy reading. I found myself re- reading the text more than once, just to make sure I had a full grasp of what they author was trying to convey. It can get a little rough at times, but the same can be said of many philosophical books. Just be patient as you read and you shouldn’t have any trouble picking up on what the book is trying to say.Relativism and constructivism are all around us. These concepts do not have much to support them philosophically, but there are diehards who still think we live in a relativistic world and that no objective truth exists. Fear of Knowledge is out to change all of that. It may not succeed at converting the full- fledged relativists among us, but it does make for some good, intellectual reading for those who want to better understand this area of philosophy and who need some tools to use to strike down those who follow it.

Professor Boghossian painstakingly establishes the arguments for relativism and constructivism and then systematically demolishes each of them. Chapter 2, "Constructing the Facts" begins, "Of the three constructivist theories before us, the most influential is the thesis of fact-constructivism--which is somewhat surprising given that it is also the most radical and counterintuitive. Indeed, properly understood, fact-constructivism is such a bizarre view that it is hard to believe that anyone endorses it. And yet, it seems that many do." He then goes on to make mincemeat of Goodman, Rorty, Foucault, and Putnam.Who could be more dogmatic, intolerant, and absolutist than relativists? They fear argument more than knowledge, so buy this book and have some fun at their expense.

The author criticizes relativism and constructivism thoroughly but the discussion is restricted in the scientific area only.

Boghossian is one of the leading philosophers, currently a Silver Professor of Philosophy at NYU. The book is a challenge to the Rorty's anti-foundationalism, and relativism (which Boghossian termed "fact-constructivism"). Despite being written by a philosopher, the book lacks a clear understanding of the Rortian critique of epistemic foundationalism. Furthermore, Boghossian failed to understand what relativism is, and the critique is nothing but some academic frustration of publishing. The book also challenges Postmodernism and especially postmodern approach to science. There are some passages where the author is trying to criticize Bruno Latour's theory and it is apparent from the footnote that Boghossian hasn't read Latour, instead, his critique of Latour is based on Sokal's reading of Latour, and it's very apparent that Sokal's reading of postmodern thinkers is highly doubtful.If you are here to understand what relativism is then this is not a book for that. Forget the critique.So, what Boghossian has done here? Boghossian has just rephrased and rewrite Sokal's words in a new fancy terminology of the contemporary academic philosophy.This is a highly substandard work.

Possibly the most relentlessly rational book I've ever read. Carefully structured, it superbly dismantles the relativist argument bit by bit, and comes to the conclusion that there must be some form of external reality, and that there is a way of describing it as it actually is.Though a short book, and Boghossian tries to present his arguments as simply as possible, some of its ideas take a bit of digesting. Complex philosophy can only be simplified so far. As Boghossian himself points out, this book doesn't aim to be comprehensive in presenting every argument against relativism, and there's plenty to be said thrashing out the finer, more tedious, details. All in all a great little book.

Interessant und gut geschrieben, aber zu kurz für eine tiefe Auseinandersetzung mit dem Thema Konstruktivismus. Neuere Denkrichtungen wie z.B. Actor Network Theory werden nicht besprochen.

As promised - thanks