Sokal's spoof was not meaningless. The point was not to be humurous by making fun of post modernist language. After all postmodernist readers did not even take it as poking fun at them. To use PM language Sokal's text deconstructed postmodernism by showing that those who use it do not even understand it since they could not distinguish a spoof from a serious discourse. This may be funny but it also makes a serious point and there is nothing low about it. Surely people who promote a language should understand it.
ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all,
Louis Proyect has posted some material recently regarding the Sokal
prank and the other dubious characters (Gross, Levitt, etc) involved in
pomo witch-hunting. This characterization is mine, since Proyect counts
Sokal as a good friend. At the risk then of offending him, I wish to
point out that not only was Sokal's prank mean-spirited but it was also
meaningless. Most importantly, it demonstrated not his point but the
very point of criticism of scientific process that he (and his lot) wish
to be immune from: that scientists use methods to establish their point
that are not much dissimilar from the way anyone else does. In this case
ridicule. Of course realizing the shallowness of his demonstration Sokal
along with self-hating-Frenchman ( ;-) ) Bricmont published a
lightweight book, as an afterthought, where they rehashed old ideas in
the philosophy of science that had been addressed and refuted quite
strongly.
There is a tendency among non-scientists to fear scientists and this
aura of superiority is maintained through every possible means, as the
Sokal prank demonstrates (as do his later bombastic invitations asking
anyone who does not believe in gravity to jump off his building: another
example of how irrational/illogical his own arguments are. I choose to
not jump off his building not because I believe or not believe in
gravity, but because, like those before me who predate the idea of
gravity, I fear dying!).
Doron Zeilberger, a mathematician at Rutgers, puts the episode in proper
perspective:
http://platosbeard.wordpress.com/2006/01/10/laffaire-sokal-the-lowest-form-of-humour/
> Opinion 11: Great Scientists, Lousy Philosophers By: Doron Zeilberger
> Written: June 3, 1996
>
> The intersection of the sets of great mathematicians or scientists
> and great philosophers is a rapidly decreasing function of time. Of
> course we have Pythagoras, Pascal, and Descartes, but even Euler was
> a rank amateur.
>
> Most of us know how he made fun of Diderot by proving the existence
> of God : ``Sir, (a+b^n)/n=x, hence God exists; reply!'' (E.T. Bell,
> Men of Math, p. 147). In his attempts at a more serious theology,
> Euler (unintenionally) made fun of himself.
>
> Nowadays, Traditional God has been replaced, in part, by another God:
> `Absolute Truth'. Practicing scientists get really annoyed when they
> are reminded that after all they are also human, and their view of
> science is time- and fashion- dependent. So Alan Sokal had a good
> laugh at the expense of post-modern cultural-relativists. But he used
> the same cheap trick of Euler, intimidation by jargon. He went one
> step farther: making fun of the sociologists' jargon. He had the
> advantage that their jargon is closer to spoken English than his, so
> he could master it superficially.
>
> Making fun of other people's language is the lowest form of humor.
> Like Euler, Sokal did not prove anything, except that physical
> scientists and mathematicians are arrogant and look down on everybody
> else. They are also religious fanatics, for whatever religion they
> may have. Social science has probably lots of rubbish, but so does
> regular science, and in either case it is not the content that
> matters so much as the act of expressing oneself's.
--ravi
--
If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by
substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!
