On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:02 AM, ravi wrote: Even Martha Nussbaum had some worthwhile things to say. I do not find them necessarily convincing (and that could be my own failing) but they are at least edifying.
Doyle, Even Martha? :-( Doug Henwood writes, I asked him (Sokal) how he'd feel about a Frankfurt-style critique of instrumental reason, and he had no idea what I was talking about. Doyle, The critique of Instrumental reason has always eluded me as useful. To my mind LP made the point clear without resort to the Frankfurt School. One might say a lot about objectivity without recourse to POMO thought. Wittgenstein is famous for the sort of claim he didn't have to know piles of philosophers who said wrong things. Being ignorant of the Frankfurt School is not so black a mark as this implies. In other words, if one didn't know POMO theory in science could one do science? POMO theory doesn't give one insight about how to proceed in epistemological or ontological areas that seems to me give Sokal problems. Let's take Paul Cockshott as an example and the Scottish School. I'm currently reading Information, Work and Meaning. It seems to me that Cockshott is interesting in a philosophical and economic sense and Sokal is not. Pomo's would not have much to contribute in regard to Cockshott either. Ravi writes, BTW, I agree with Raghu about CS. Doyle, Please explain then in a scientific and or philosophical manner what makes CS lowly? Compared to say mathematics. thanks, Doyle Saylor
