Sokal again. Drat!

[MASCARO at HUMnet.UCLA.EDU]

Paul M. writes:

>The fact no one has mentioned the current _New York Review_ piece
>revisiting "the Sokal hoax" probably means the whole thing
>is getting boring, but . . .
>

 . . .  but since it's here I just wanna gripe about the attitude of the scientists in 
this--debate--(this thought won't be as articulate as I like, but what else is new?).  I 
get bugged at pronouncements along the lines of, "There is a real world out there 
and we scientists know how to find things out about it and the things we find out 
about it are true."  This kind of circular jab is always plopped down smugly  w/ a 
tone of: this is self-evident and only a fool or a lit critic could think otherwise.  And 
it reminds me of the EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES every time I see such a 
statement.  The thing that bugs me, besides the smugness of such tautological 
assertions is the obvious, but downplayed question of scientific fraud and/or error.  
Who sez scientists are so darn good at ferreting truth from construction?  Why do 
they often find themselves at odds over even defining what constitutes a scientific 
question, much less distinguishing fraud from Truth?  Since Sokal's such a good 
hoaxter, what about scientific frauds like Piltdown Man, a constructed hoax that 
was soberly accepted for decades because, among other things, it fit nicely w/ certain 
current social constructions (read Stephen Jay Gould on the Piltdown Man story, 
implicating Tel. De Chardin and others).  Why was the guy who conceived of plate 
tectonics (Waggener? something like that) hooted out of academia back in the 
Twenties for his obvious lack of competence? Why, just a few years ago, was David 
Baltimore (or, more accurately, Nobel Laureate David Baltimore, which is how the 
newspapers spell his name) forced to resign from Rockefeller University's 
presidency because of his marginal involvement in a case of scientific fraud that, 
now, we are told, wasn't a fraud at all (this is the Tufts case)?  Why did they have to 
shut down those two guys (Becker and Feder, I think, were their names) at that 
state-run scientific fraud office because nobody could tell if they (Becker and Feder) 
were really finding frauds or just--projecting.  The grip of science, through its 
handmaiden technology, on social consciousness priveliges these guys in a 
dangerous fashion.  That, and the mode of discourse they employ, are formidable 
forces indeed.  But, as I like to tell my writing classes, read almost any scientific 
magazine article, from popular to technical, and it's a very good bet that 
somewhere in the article will a be a sentence that says something like:  "Scientists 
are still unsure of what causes . . ." or "Although the mechanism for this 
phenomenon remains mysterious . . ." or "While no one knows if this assumption 
is valid  . . ." etc. etc.  And these concessions are not trivial, but are usually central 
to the topic being discussed!
  So, I say ( w/ apologies to Ez) to all the Pointsmans and Pointsman wannabes out 
there: Pull down thy Vanity, Sokal, et al, I say pull down! 

john m