Sokal again. Drat!

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

grip asks an interesting question:
>
>I wonder how many of the types of articles that send you screaming up the 
>wall are written by first rate scientists and how many are written by 
>scientific acolytes who can't hack it as a practicing scientist but 
>can produce lots of material for the layman to read.

It's a good question because it makes me realize that I have no idea if in fact Sokal 
is one of those good scientists or not.  I mentioned the work of pop science writers 
only to point out how all of their articles concede a fundamental ignorance on the 
very questions they are reporting that the scientists have answered.  As far as real 
scientists, I only read those who are writing for the moderately educated layperson, 
not being a scientist myself (or even moderately educated most of the time).  A 
horribly incomplete list of scientists I've read at least one book by, off the top of my 
head, (there should be a net acronym for that expression, but OTTOMH  doesn't 
quite make it): Lewis Thomas, Gould, Feynmann, Hawking, George Gamow, 
Penrose (whose style I dislike--too many exclamation points!), Primo Levi.  All of 
these guys write very well, and convey solid truths.  I don't know what any of them 
would have thought, or think, of the new science studies, but I suspect they would 
concede some validity.  Wadda you think, grip?

john m