Sokal et al

[Kyburz at ASU.Edu]

Of course, Bill is right.  Just seemed like it was worth a little poke.

Bonnie



On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Bill Millard wrote:

> 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
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> 

Bonnie L. Kyburz, Instructor
Department of English			(602) 965-7756 (office)
Arizona State University		kyburz at asu.edu
Tempe, AZ  85287-0302			*or* surfus at chuma.cas.usf.edu