>At 1:56 AM 11/15/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>(1) No "social constructionist" that I know of denies physical reality. > >"However, consistent with his philosophical Leninism, [Bhaskar] insists on >epistemological arguments for the objectivity of the material world. That >is, against the idealism's 'irrealism,' which Bhaskar ascribes to the >Kantian idea that science refers exclusively to the conditions of >knowledge, he retains objective reality as a(n) (indeterminate) referent >independent of the processes of knowing.... This leaves him with a >self-described realist metaphysics.... Even when he writes somewhat >sympathetically of Hegel's dialectics, the influence of English positivism >and empiricism remains heavily on the page." >-Stanley Aronowitz, "The Politics of the Science Wars," Social Text 46-47 > >I'm not sure, but I think "Leninism" and "positivism" are cuss words in >Stanleyism. Doug: the quote above does not -- NOT -- "deny physical reality." The whole question at stake is the relationship between human consciousness and material reality. Is there a split between subjective human consciousness and objective material reality, or rather a dialectical relationship between the two? Marx, for one, clearly thought the latter (and I agree with him on this point). Human consciousness is an aspect of material reality. >"Rather, [natural scientists] cling to the dogma imposed by the long >post-Englightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which >can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, >whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed >of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in 'eternal' >physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect >and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the 'objective' >procedures and epistemological structures prescribed by the so-called >scientific method. > But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have >undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics (Heisenberg 1958; Bohr >1963); revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have >cast further doubt on its credibility (Kuhn 1970; Feyerabend 1975; Latour >1987; Aronowitz 1988b; Bloor 1991); and, most recently, feminist and >poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of >mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of >domination concealed behind the facade of 'objectivity' (Merchant 1980; >Keller 1985; Harding 1986, 1991; Haraway 1989, 1991; Best 1991). It has >thus become increasingly apparent that physical 'reality,' no less than >social 'reality,' is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.... > Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step further, by taking >account of recent developments in quantum gravity.... In quantum gravity, >as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective >physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the >foundational conceptual categories of prior science - among them, existence >itself - become problematized and relativized." >- Alan Sokal, "Transgressing the Boundaries," Social Text 46-47. A quote from Sokal's "hoax" is supposed to constitute evidence that social constructionists deny physical reality? Doug, please. He sets up a straw theory to criticize. This is my point. However, even the quote above does not "deny physical reality." It denies physical reality *independent of* humans. Just ask the dodo if material reality is independent of humanity! Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
