When has post-modernist non-sense:
~'all points of view are valid/justified', ~'scientists are biased/science cannot prove with 100% certainty its conclusions - therefore science is flawed/useless/whatever' + thousands of pages of obtuse text,
ever helped anyone?
First, I doubt anyone here proposes to support either of those positions. Even if they did, as absolute statements they are highly suspect.
In this thread alone, R. Star, JarodRussell & co are pretty much there with their ~'good and evil are mere points of view'.
And there's a lot of literature out there (as said, post-modernism) that supports just that.
The closest I would argue is that all points of view are worth trying to understand. That doesn't validate them in any way, but you can't oppose *or* support a viewpoint before you understand what's driving it.
The second is simply a logical fallacy. Science isn't trying to prove anything, it's trying to explain things in a way that is predictively useful. But you can't correct someone about this misconception unless you understand their viewpoint first, can you?
Post-modernists disagree, and support their argument with books-full of obtuse non-sense. Obtuse, I suspect, in order to appear sophisticated and to mask the weakness of their argument (which their critics invariably don't understand).