It's my understanding that postmodern philosophy examines the way in which power and language are used to create discourses around the "truth". What's less clear to me is whether postmodernists believe that there is such a thing as fundamental truth at all. Or, perhaps, that there is but we have no hope of reaching it because our understanding is shaped by the limitations of language.
I am especially interested in how this relates to science and mathematics. In the second edition of The Golem, Harry Collins states that his goal in critiquing the scientific process is to make that process better and to illustrate its limitations rather than to say it has no value in discovering the truth. However a friend of mine, who was a one-time student of Collins, tells me that was not always his position. That at one time, he believed the concept of trying to uncover some central "truth" via science was fundamentally flawed and hopeless.
I have heard similarly conflicting opinions about Baudrillard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Some say that the title should be taken literally. Others that it's a metaphorical examination of the idea that we cannot be sure what actually happened, because our understanding is filtered via western media. The author, I believe, is on record as saying it's between the two: his argument is that atrocities took place which may, or may not, constitute an actual war.
There are other numerous examples from the Sokal affair and the science wars. My point in providing them is to illustrate that, to a layman such as myself, it seems very unclear as to whether postmodernists are arguing that there is no fundamental truth at all, or that we have limited (or possibly zero) means of understanding that truth. Which is it?