[Previous] [Next] [Hitlist] [Get Thread] [Author Profile] [Post] [Post] [Reply] _________________________________________________________________ Article 12 of 84 Subject: How much to invest in such a writer? (was: Sophistry 103) From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) Date: 1996/10/16 Message-Id: <542up3$mh@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> Ident-User: turpin References: <53jp21$9kk@panix.com> <32634EA6.4287@nwu.edu> <541kvr$odt@peache s.cs.utexas.edu> <3264B9DC.168F@nwu.edu> Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin Newsgroups: alt.postmodern,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,rec.arts.books,sci.physic s -*--------- In article <3264B9DC.168F@nwu.edu>, brian artese wrote: > But this is the very reason I would like you to have read the > particular theorists themselves and *not* their "adherents". ... > ... Most scholars would be beet-red with embarrassment to admit > that they've expounded such strong opinions about an author of > whose 20-odd books they have yet to finish one. If Artese is going to make assumptions about his opponents, he should take care that they do not directly conflict with what they tell of themselves. To repeat: most of what I know about Derrida comes from reading him. Some of the frequently suggested essays seemed so shallow I even tried reading them twice or thrice. I do not find Derrida hard to read; rather, I find that what he says (or seems to say, given his indirect style) vacillates between the shallow and the silly. It seemed to me that rather than leaving it at what I found directly, especially given the esteem in which some scholars hold him, I should listen to what Derrida's adherents have to say for him. Having this happy new medium in front of me, I turned to it, and looked in alt.postmodern. This experience has lowered my appraisal of Derrida a bit, perhaps unfairly. If Artese thinks my overall approach is terribly wrong, perhaps he will explain an alternate approach that would have worked better? He should keep in mind that there are many writers out there, even many good ones, and that any approach a reader takes should take some account of the investment a reader makes ... > If it were true that Sokal, say, is not interested in theoretical > discourse -- which is, of course, only so much child's play in > comparison with the real work going on at Dow chemical -- then > why would he manufacture an entire article for a theoretical > journal? Why would he spend so much of his subsequent time > following up, writing articles, continuing to this day to > engage with an intellectual community so beneath the notice of > scientists? How completely the literati seek to own the word "theory"! Sokal, of course, is interested in theory in a variety of senses: scientific theory, methodological theory, and philosophical theory as it relates to these. From all evidence, he knows much more about such theory than the "theory" types arrayed against him. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that Sokal has (or at least, had) little interest in literary "theory" and the kind of metaphysics I described. So how does a person interested in theory under the first umbrella become embroiled with those who are interested in theory under the second? The answer is very simple: the humanities departments of current academia are full of "scholars" who know nothing about science, who know precious little about philosophy as it relates to science, who are puffed up from their "critical theory" (which, much like the moral majority, is neither), and who on the basis of their ignorance and irrelevant knowledge are all too happy to pronounce on science! Had those in the humanities constrained their "theory" to discussion of the construction of class in Dickens and similar topics, they never would have known of Sokal, regardless of how rigorously or laxly they conducted their work. But the literati wanted to be relevant, and so they started talking to and about those who were studying other subjects, without first learning what might help them do so. Now that they have attracted the attention of people for whom the words rigor and theory have substantive meaning, and for whom the scholarly mores are instrumental rather than ritual [1], they have only themselves to blame for this attention. To put this in context, I should point out that I am not particularly opposed to Derrida. I do not see much of value in him, but if some literature professors find him fascinating, I am happy that they have found their cow. What *does* bother me is when humanities scholars write and teach stupid things about subjects that *do* interest me. If Artese wants to go point by point through a particularly egregious example of this, I would recommend Sandra Harding's feminist critique of science. Harding is highly regarded, frequently publishes in the "theory" journal that Sokal exposed, and her ideas are taught in the humanities department. Now: how does a literary type who is ignorant of science become famous and well-regarded in the humanities for saying stupid things about science?? When Artese answers that question, he will also know why Sokal did what he did. > Not interested in metaphysics? What about this transcendental > thing, this "science" that somehow infuses it's essence into > what would seem to be a completely heterogeneous collection of > activities? Here some guy is infecting a petri dish, there > some woman is testing new microchip media, and over there > somebody else is recording how long a certain type of mortar > decays. All these are somehow "science." ... Yeah, right. Who is so stupid to think in this way that worries Artese? No freshman engineering student is so naive. (Or if they are, as the joke goes, they inevitably transfer into the humanities.) Everyone (with the noted exception) understands that "science" is a word that gets broadly and often carelessly applied. Any undergraduate science or engineering major can explain to Artese that those who are working on a fab line are not practicing science, or at least, are not doing so in the same way that someone observing a new species of bacteria is practicing science. For that matter, they can explain the difference between practicing the business of "science" (e.g., writing grants), practicing theory in "science" (e.g., developing a new model of genetic transfer in bacteria), practicing the field work of "science" (e.g., observing a new species of bacteria), practicing the theory *of* "science" (e.g., exploring methodological issues w.r.t. biology research), assuming the aura of "science" (e.g., Gore talking about the environment), etc. > It's clear to me why Sokal is so alarmed by contemporary theory, > bent as it is on exposing the purely rhetorical ground of > formerly sacred domains. Yeah, right. In like fashion, the astronauts get alarmed by all those who are bent on exposing the moon landing fraud. (On the other hand, if some English department hired a crank to teach about the moon landing fraud, many astronauts would get justifiably pissed. Similarly, scientists are justifiably pissed about Harding.) > The "your turf, my turf" talk is very telling. ... Indeed. Artese has never seen me pronounce on the construction of class in Dickens BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ONE IOTA ABOUT IT. Yet any number of people here, and any number of humanities professors such as Harding, pronounce on science without knowing a damned thing about it! (In any of its senses.) A large part of the disagreements, both here on the Web and in academia, comes from people talking about things on which they are profoundly ignorant. Given that the two sides are now colliding so rapidly, I am happy to admit that this sin occurs some on both sides. But it does not occur to the same degree and in the same way on both sides. I would bet that if one did a word count for Derrida in Physics Review D, you would find fewer than five hits. In contrast, how many hits on "quantum mechanics" would one find in the "theory" journal that Sokal exposed? Even now, in the midst of the war, the science departments do NOT pretend to teach literary criticism. But the humanities are full of those who think they know how to criticize science. Russell -- "Why does our innate subjective spacing of qualities accord so well with the functionally relevant groupings in nature as to make our inductions come out right? ... Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing." W. V. O. Quine _________________________________________________________________ [Previous] [Next] [Hitlist] [Get Thread] [Author Profile] [Post] [Post] [Reply] _________________________________________________________________ Home Power Search Post to Usenet Ask DN Wizard Help Why use DN? | Advertising Info | New Features! | Policy Stuff Copyright © 1996 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.