>From the French version of Sokal's and Bricmont's book, I got the same
>interpretation than Sabri from the Turkish one. The authors only denounce
>abuses committed by some French people labelled as "intellectuals".
>Actually, it is not simply matter of mistakes, in using some physics
>principles unsufficiently mastered, but indeed hoaxes to hide intellectually
>empty discourses. Sokal and Bricmont do not go so far in the criticism. They
>are remarkably measured in their judgment, with respect to the dishonesty of
>people they criticize.
>In my (non humble) opinion, an intellectual is someone who is intested in
>UNDERSTANDING the world, not in playing an in-fashion and well paid
>character.
>
>RK
Unfortunately, the "science wars" pits postmodernists against a group whose
Marxist credentials are dubious at best. In the initial euphoria over
seeing hot-air artists like Stanley Aronowitz and Jacques Derrida getting
their comeuppance, it was assumed (including by me) that Sokal was some
kind of Marxist. In reality, his understanding of the role of science comes
straight out of the liberal "marketplace of ideas" arena. By his own
admission, he has never read Gramsci, Richard Lewontin or Richard Levins.
Lewontin has a superb essay in the issue of Social Text that contained
Sokal's spoof.
For those who want to understand how Marxists understand science, I
strongly recommend Helena Sheehan's "Marxism and the Philosophy of
Science", parts of which are online at:
http://www.comms.dcu.ie/sheehanh/mxphsc.htm.
I posted this to Marxmail shortly after the last Socialist Scholars
Conference:
While strolling through the vendor displays at the Socialist Scholars
Conference yesterday, I was pleased to discover that Humanities Press was
back in business, under the Prometheus imprint. This is one of the finest
publishers of serious Marxist scholarship in the world. Among the titles
that will now be available once again are LeBlanc-Wald's "Trotskyism in
the USA" and Lowy's "Marxism in Latin America".
But I was particularly pleased to see that they have made Helena Sheehan's
"Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: a Critical History" available in
paperback. This book is an exhaustively researched, but eminently
readable, study of how Marxists have tried to apply their method to the
natural world, starting with Marx and Engels themselves. Parts of
Sheehan's book are online at: http://www.comms.dcu.ie/sheehanh/mxphsc.htm.
I have referenced them in the past to demonstrate how the early Soviet
Union attempted to integrate scientific research into the overall
revolutionary project. Here's a brief excerpt from the introduction to
chapter 4, which is online:
"Because of his concern for winning over the existing intelligentsia and
because of his special interest in the philosophy of science, Lenin was
particularly interested in gaining the support of natural scientists. When
the distinguished biologist K.A. Timiriazev announced his fervent loyalty
to the new regime, Lenin was overjoyed. The bolsheviks received him with
open arms and named a research center after him: the State Timiriazev
Scientific Research Institute for the Study and Propaganda of Natural
Science from Point of View of Dialectical Materialism (mercifully reduced
to Timiriazev Institute in all but the most formal references to it).
"Another success was the N.I. Vavilov, who was put in charge of a whole
network of biological institutions. The physicist A.F. Joffe had actually
joined the anti-bolshevik exodus of scholars to the Crimea in 1917, but
returned to Petrograd, resolved to connect his fate with that of the land
of the Soviets, although it was by any means clear that the civil war
would be won. He became a member of the Leningrad soviet and doyen of
soviet physicists, although it was not until 1942 that he joined the party.
"There was a concerted campaign to win working natural scientists over to
a materialist position in the philosophy of science. Through such agencies
as Union of Scientific Workers, the All-Union Association of Workers
Science and Technology for Assistance to the Construction of Socialism
(VARNITSO), and the Central Commission for Improving the Condition of
Scholars, various societies for materialist natural scientists
corresponding to various scientific disciplines, the bolsheviks fought to
win their hearts and minds."
While Sheehan's book makes no reference to the Sokal affair, it clearly
illustrates that revolutionary socialism has an entirely agenda than Alan
Sokal and his tutor Norman Levitt (who organized a "science wars"
conference at NYU using Olin Foundation money), and much of the anti-pomo
left. For Sokal, science is a kind of ivory tower pursuit that should be
protected from meddlers who haven't been initiated into its sacred rites,
especially the postmodernists who don't know the difference between a
quark and a quirk. For reasons too complicated to go into now, Sokal was
assum
