From:         rvien@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau)
Date:         1996/11/12
Message-Id:   <rvien-1111962156560001@ub24.dreamscape.com>
References:   <53jp21$9kk@panix.com> <327EACAA.4BF7@nwu.edu> <3291d4 <328385C5.65C@nwu.edu> <560biq$42@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <3284101C.13BF@nwu.edu>
Organization: Dreamscape Online
Newsgroups:   alt.postmodern,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,rec.arts.books



From 1:30 to 5:00 on 8 November, I attended an interdisciplinary
discussion at Syracuse University entitled "Humanities, Natural
Sciences, Social Sciences: An Interdiscipinary Discussion, with guest
Alan Sokal." This is an account of my impression of this event. Before
giving my report, perhaps I ought to introduce my background. I
have some training in mathematics and software engineering. I read
philosophy as a hobby. I have not read French literary critics at all,
other than a limited amount of Foucault which I do not understand.
I do like some trends, however, in Anglo American philosophy towards
irrealism and anti-foundationalism which I think follows from the
later Wittgenstein.

Stewart Thau, (Associate Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences),
the moderator introduced the planned procedure. I think the deviations
from the planned procedure are quite interesting. What was planned
was that Sokal and the other panels would give five minute introductions
of their views on Post Modernism, Post Structurualism, science studies -
whaever - and Sokalıs hoax. Then the panel would have a discussion
among themselves. After a break, the panel would field questions from the
floor. The panel consisted of Linda Alcoff (Philosophy), Beverly Allen
(Languages, Literatures & Linguistics), John Crowley (English), Larry
Hardin (Philosophy), Richard Ratcliff (Sociology), Peter Saulson (Physics),
and Charles Winquist (Religion). Closing remarks were offered by James
Comas (Writing Program).

What actually happened was that each panelist went over the limit and there
was hardly any panel discussion with the panelists reacting to one anothers'
comments. Questions asked from the floor were directed to Sokal, and we
never got to hear responses from the other panelists, with the occassional
exception of Linda Alcoff and Beverly Allen, both of whom were well
worth hearing. It soon became clear that Sokal is not competent to speak
on the effects of his hoax. Since Sokal did most of the talking, I think
this forum was a failure as an interdisciplinary session.

Sokalıs actions and his words conflicted. He agreed with Andrew Rossı
characterization of himself as "ill-read and half educated." He is under
no illusion that he has offered a critique of Post Modernism or a treatise
on epistemology. (He does think Chomskyıs comments, available on
the 'Net, offer a biting critique of Post Modernism.) He agrees that
philosophical questions cannot be assumed to be answered by
robust "common sense," without further ado. Yet, as noted, the question
and answer period was occupied almost exclusively with his unargued
reactions to quite advanced questions. And these reactions stifled
discussion, contrary to his stated purpose in conducting his hoax.

Let me give some examples. A row of English graduate students got
up and were shot down with questions like these (not exact quotes):

  Grad Student:  So what should literary critics do?

  Alan Sokal:  Who am I to tell literary critics what to do?

  G.S.:  But you are critiquing their tools.

  A.S.:  No Iım not. Iım criticizing their use of math and comments on
  science, the one field Iım competent to comment on.

  G.S.:  I know you must have a theory of language. The language
  of science serves one purpose when used among specialists. But
  what role do you think this language plays when itıs used among a
  wider audience?

  A.S.:  I don't have a theory of meaning. [Earlier he had told us
  that use of jargon was valid when the jargon terms basically
  served as abbreviations.] Well, I suppose words get their meanings
  by pointing to the objects for which they stand.

I suspect Sokal has no idea about Wittgenstein's comments on
Augustine, or how ideas about the use of language might have
led to those anti-realist ideas he reacts so negatively to. And I
suggest I was not the only person in the room that thought
Sokal extremely naive, to put it kindly.

Furthermore, this was only a half an hour since Sokal had
demonstrated his belief that Social Text might reject his parody
with the following story. He had individually bet a couple of
his friends a dinner in NYC over whether Social Text would
accept his article. He let each of them chose which side of the
bet they wanted, thereby showing that Sokal believed the odds
were 50-50 that his article would be accepted. This is all
well and good, but Sokal described this conclusion as
following from a "Bayesian" perspective. This is obvious
to the statistician, but what use does this jargon term serve
when a physicist is addressing a room full of humanists?

Another aspect is what role this hoax serves in the wider
community. Sokal is clearly enjoying the attention, but he
denies his hoax has any real influence outside academia. He
doesn't like the anti-intellectualism that many have exhibited
when discussing his hoax - apparently a NY Times reporter
thought the point of the parody was to mock academics for
using long words like "epistemology" or "ontology." But
Sokal claims he was only news for a day in the outside world.
The anti-intellectualism was already there, and he didnıt
have any influence on it one way or another. Meanwhile
the hoax generated such unproductive discussions in academia
as this forum; otherwise the claims of the Post Modernists
would have gone unexamined.

--
Robert Vienneau                   Try my Mac econ simulation game,
rvien@future.dreamscape.com       Bukharin, at

  ftp://csf.colorado.edu/econ/authors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.sea

Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue, are always
found...in proportion to the power or wealth of a man [is] a question
fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their
masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search
of the truth.                         -- Rousseau