Sokal et al

[Cal McInvale]

At 7:23 AM -0800 12/5/96, Diana York Blaine wrote:

     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".)

It's not a question of "rights." It's simply a matter of training and
experience. Those trained to "do science" are apt to "do science" better
than those trained in the humanities. Experience in the field further
widens the gap.

Sure, one can "do the research" and perhaps offer an informed (as opposed
to their previous) opinions on scientific matters. Certainly one would be
in a position to ask precise questions at that point. No good scientist
would object to this; in fact, most of us would praise anyone who did so,
the state of scientific education being so poor these days. But it is a
question of "how much" -- you don't expect to be able to build a bridge,
solve Fermat's Last Theorem or fully comprehend quantum electrodynamics
just by reading a few books, do you?



------------------
cal mcinvale                      entropy specialist
calm at tpdinc.com                   tpd publishing inc.

     The fact that I beat a drum has nothing to do
     with the fact that I do theoretical physics.
                                --Richard Feynmann