Sokal et al

[Jones Emily R]

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Cal McInvale wrote:

> 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?

Pardon my intrusion-- I've been lurking only a few days now (and I had 
really wanted my first post to be about Pynchon)-- but I couldn't help but 
note the science/humanity argument here... I'm taking a class now that is 
both science and english, and, though extremely cynical at first, i have 
grown to love it... We began, in fact, by reading C. P. Snow's _The Two 
Cultures_-- apparently there still exists a schism between the disciplines. 
Might want to check it out? Or maybe I can tell more?

At any rate, nice meeting all of you!

Jonesy