but to the extent that there is an accepted definition of postmodernism it is generally what Lyotard described as the end of 'grand narratives'; to see all of history in the light of righteousness (or seeing history as the progress of 'logic' or 'reason', for that matter) is quite literally anti-postmodern.

Lyotard talks extensively about science as a grand narrative having a falling out, and it suffering a loss of faith in its grander purpose. This implies that the fundamental system of science, which is built on a rigorous standard of skeptical inquiry, will somehow lose this key quality. He criticizes the concept of human emancipation, and criticizes science as being a "language game", which he calls "inherently unjust".

I think it's rather ironic that I'm being accused of "misrepresenting" a philosophy in "bad faith", when I'm simply disagreeing with it in a civilized way. I think if anyone is arguing in bad faith, it's the people who are jumping to conclusions about my character.

I find myself agreeing with Lyotards critic Charles Stivale when he said, " ... I must also observe that this work [Lyotard's The Differend] is of vital importance in a period when revisionism of all stripes attempts to rewrite, and often simply deny, the occurrence of historical and cultural events, i.e. in attempting to reconstruct 'reality" in the convenient names of 'truth' and 'common sense' "