Sokal et al

[Bill Millard]

On matters Sokalian, replying to Paul Mackin, Bonnie Kyburz wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> Aha!  So now I understand;  They don't want us poking around in Their 
> business 'cause we might find out that They don't have any pants on?  
> That *is* delightful.

Careful, Bonnie: I think a fully Pynchonian response here would
steer far, far away from the temptation of triumphalism.  Could it be
that the physicists and biologists ("They"? Not exactly the same Them
that TRP warns us about...) have attained higher social prestige than
the purported "We" of the postmod humanities, not because of some
buck-naked-emperor-type plot, but precisely because they retain more
humility toward their theories' explanatory power?  Science -- not to
be confused w/ scientism -- continually strives for better answers,
not The Absolute Objective Right Answer; thoughtful scientists know
that the process is eternal, that closure ain't an option.  

Contrast this with the astonishing arrogance of various totalizing
theorists (everybody will have their own favorite examples here, but
I'd cite the Lacanians and Freudians as particularly noisome
occupants of a cloud-cuckoo-land of circular logics and groundless,
pseudoscientific, ahistorical baffle-gabbing rhetorical strategies)
who lack the intellectual honesty and humility to subject their own
discourse to the kinds of real-world corrective processes that are
SOP in the physical- and biological-science communities.  Is it any
wonder that Sokal's hoax basically worked, that the real buck-naked
emperors and authority-mongers turned out to be the likes of Ross?  

I'd suggest that the Pynchonian binarism of
Them/Counterforce does NOT map accurately onto the professional
categories science/non-science.  After all, look at Alan Sokal's
history of personal political engagement: he's clearly a hard-sci guy,
and also clearly a member of a counterforce worth the name.

I'm not so sure that "confidence in explanatory power of theories" is
such a valuable thing after all; it may be the confidence of a
confidence man.  Maybe working in a field where hard data can verify
or disconfirm one's ideas leads to an admirably Pynchonian humility,
even a more social style of knowledge-construction (ever notice how
few litcrit writings, compared w/ scientific monographs, are
collaborations?), and maybe all the leftish posing in the world isn't
going to make anything truly liberatory out of Ross's brand of cult
studs.  (Not to give the whole CS discipline a bad name, but his
performance in l'affaire Sokal didn't exactly do the field any
favors.)  

I don't have my _GR_ handy here at this office, but the appropriate
passage on science 'n' humility (one with some semi-obvious
applications to CS as it's been developing) would seem to be that
epigraph from "Tales of the Schwarzkommando" about letting the
observable data determine one's mental constructs, not the other way
around.  (Anybody wanna fill me in on chapter & verse here?)

Strapping on my Kevlar flameproof jacket,
Bill Millard

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\ Bill Millard 
\ millard at cuadmin.cis.columbia.edu
\ Editor, 21stC, Columbia University
\ http://www.21stC.org
\ Voice, bass, and songs, Shanghai Love Motel 
\ http://www.columbia.edu/~wbm1/slm.html
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/