tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post7106125112539394174..comments2023-06-04T03:08:10.609-04:00Comments on Salty Current: Alan Sokal, science, and politicsSChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-4364545110680245082009-09-28T15:38:56.742-04:002009-09-28T15:38:56.742-04:00Thanks for linking to Sokal's talk, SC - I had...Thanks for linking to Sokal's talk, SC - I hadn't seen or heard him before. His ranking of the enemies of rational enquiry seemed about right to me - except that he didn't mention advertisers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-38278266835077649302009-08-18T17:50:10.325-04:002009-08-18T17:50:10.325-04:00Thanks for your comments (especially the Bunge ref...Thanks for your comments (especially the Bunge reference). I apologize for the delayed response - social obligations this week.<br /><br /><i>I have always found science (not necessarily technology!) to be emancipatory and there is a huge swath of people influenced to various to degrees to think of it otherwise. Unfortunate, to say the least.</i><br /><br />I'm writing a post about this right now. Plan to have it up by tomorrow at the latest.<br /><br /><i>As for getting Foucault right,...</i><br /><br />Hmm. Hard for me to talk about someone like Foucault. As a sociologist, I've always considered myself far more in the tradition of C. Wright Mills than of Foucault. When I think about it, though, Foucault's work has been of significant interest to me. I have my large stack of works by Foucault here with me, so with any luck I'll be able to post something soon about what I see as useful or correct in his thinking.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-59342302828212151492009-08-16T11:48:12.876-04:002009-08-16T11:48:12.876-04:00I quite enjoyed that talk, thanks for posting it. ...I quite enjoyed that talk, thanks for posting it. It is pretty clear that he gets almost everything right. <br /><br />Philosopher-animal, it's funny you should mention Bunge. I came across a bunch of his papers just yesterday and was surprised how familiar they seemed. He was making some of the New Atheist arguments a decade before they arrived on the scene.<br /><br />Bunge is remarkable in that he's a physicist-philosopher (not just an epistemologist), he seems to have a tolerable grasp on the philosophy (as opposed to, say, Lewis Wolpert), and he's a firebrand incompatibilist.BLS Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09221793753245953967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-32454546475613777392009-08-16T09:14:26.856-04:002009-08-16T09:14:26.856-04:00Another, related, problem with the postmodernists ...Another, related, problem with the postmodernists (and allied "schools") is that by weakening intellectual standards they encourage gullibility about the very things that many of them are interested in. For example, the history of science: H. Collins used to give a lecture/has written about the supposed social effects at work in the acceptance of special relativity. Not once in the talk did he mention any whatsoever about the relationship between special relativity and classical electrodyanmics.<br /><br />Also, although there were a few remarks about this, it is now amazing to watch the reactionary right make use of the "create our own reality" schtick. I have always found science (not necessarily technology!) to be emancipatory and there is a huge swath of people influenced to various to degrees to think of it otherwise. Unfortunate, to say the least.<br /><br />As for getting Foucault right, I am certainly not an expert, but it seems to me that he, like many others often criticized in these respects, says many almost-to-contradictory things. Subsequently it is difficult to pin down an exact position. (The turgid style is also a barrier, as is, I suspect, bad translations.) I know that his debate with Chomsky (!) was fairly interesting, though very inconclusive.<br /><br />Gross and Levitt claim to be on different ends of the spectrum, with Levitt closer to Sokal, and Gross being some sort of conservative.<br /><br />Finally, Mario Bunge has also held for a long time views similar to Sokal and has some interesting (though sometimes merely "suggestive") remarks useful in these matters.philosopher-animalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505629919126188962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-12285008140626122812009-08-10T16:50:46.528-04:002009-08-10T16:50:46.528-04:00I think this entry is the most fair thing I've...I think this entry is the most fair thing I've ever read about Sokal. Usually stuff out of the sciences that talks about various of the literary-critical "isms" gets it so wrong it's beyond missing the point.<br /><br />Speaking as someone who's at least got their academic learner's permit in the field (I have a Master's degree in what amounts to applied rhetoric), there is room within the field of lit-crit to use all the various isms (Postmodernism, Modernism, Deconstructionism, Feminism, Marxism, etc.) as <i>analytical tools</i>, as opposed to a sort of academic <i>weltanschauung</i>. One can, should, and does, at least if one has one's head screwed on straight, pick up three or four of these at a time and run some kind of intractable problem through them -- whatever changes <i>least</i> is probably most likely to be something resembling a fact. Which applies perfectly well to texts, of course, but less so to anything that isn't one.<br /><br />On the other hand, I've never had much patience for the school of thought that dictates that impenetrable writing and elusive neologisms coupled with an insufferable amount of pretension make one some sort of radical. Even something as useful as an analysis of power dynamics isn't useful at all if one has to slog through a densely-written tome the size of the Manhattan phone book, all rendered in the most academic-discursified of impenetrable prose. Fancy bullshitting is still bullshitting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com