Sokal et al

[Paul Mackin]

Though my sporadic schooling was in the so called hard sciences, I
don't see that side of things as deserving a privileged position.

On the other hand  there's no  harm in trying to pick apart the humanities' use of physical and biological constructs in THEIR  theorizing. Thought that
was what the game was about. Pynch'd love it.

Don't deny it doesn't  become a him/her thing, but what can you do this
late in the game. The same unfortunate slippage occurs at my house
when the dog and cat (both females) tangle. It ends up as HIM chasing
HER.

One problem may be that the physicists and biologists often have a lot
less confidence in the explanatory power of their theories than
"the other" have.

				P.



----------
From: 	Diana York Blaine
Sent: 	Thursday, December 05, 1996 10:23 AM
To: 	Kyburz at asu.edu
Cc: 	pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: 	Sokal et al

Hi Bonnie--thanks for setting me straight.  I am fairly new to
the list and figured that there had been some discussion of Hayles, but
couldn't resist trying to be helpful.  Glad you mentioned that Sokal
thing (did I already miss the flame/thread on it?)--I am fascinated by all
of it, the resistance to humanities-types talking science, the arrogance
of Andrew Ross in refusing to admit he screwed up, etc.  I'm not sure why
we don't have the right to know fields beyond our own as long as we're
willing to do the research--yet the "hard" sciences seem to have a
privileged position from which they can dismiss the critiques coming from
those of us in the humanities, a very masculine/feminine issue, on some
level ("Because I am your FATHER, that's WHY".)  Diana