Sokal replies (fwd)

[Bonnie Surfus (ENG)]

more . . .

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 17:09:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Julie Drew (ENG) <drew at chuma.cas.usf.edu>
To: "Gary Olson (ENG)" <olson at chuma.cas.usf.edu>,
    "Todd Taylor (ENG)" <taylor at chuma.cas.usf.edu>,
    "Thomas West (ENG)" <west at chuma.cas.usf.edu>,
    "Sidney Dobrin (ENG)" <dobrin at chuma.cas.usf.edu>,
    Irene Ward <ipw at tfsksu.net>,
    "Bonnie Surfus (ENG)" <surfus at chuma.cas.usf.edu>,
    "Joe Hardin (ENG)" <hardin at chuma.cas.usf.edu>,
    "Andrea Greenbaum (ENG)" <greenbau at chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Subject: Sokal replies (fwd)

Here's Sokol's reply to Fish which the NYT wouldn't print.  (If any of 
you--besided Raul--subscribe to pre/text or are otherwise not interested 
in this issue, just let me know and I'll take you off my list.)

Julie Drew
University of South Florida

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 14:22:00 -0500
From: Victor J Vitanza <sophist at utarlg.uta.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PTISSUES <PTISSUES at MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Sokal replies (fwd)

---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender:       Pre/Text issues discussion <PTISSUES at MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Poster:       Victor J Vitanza <sophist at utarlg.uta.edu>
Subject:      Sokal replies (fwd)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and the pixels go on,
vjv

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 14:45:18 -0400
From: Michael Uebel <mdu6f at faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
To: deleuze-guattari at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Sokal replies

   Here's the latest news from the NY Times:  After giving Stanley Fish 38
column inches (not including graphics) to misrepresent my views, and
giving Bruce Robbins and Andrew Ross an additional 4 column inches to
restate their own views and mildly misrepresent mine, the NYT letters
editor (Kris Wells, 212-556-1873) has refused to print my 12-column-inch
reply.  She said I could have only 7.3 column inches.  Since such drastic
compression would make a travesty of my letter, I refused.

    Here, for your interest, is the letter the NYT refused to print. Feel
free to distribute it.

        Best,  Alan Sokal


To the editor:
-- more --

It's not every day that a mere theoretical physicist such as myself has
the honor of being subjected to a half-page personal attack by the august
Stanley Fish ("Professor Sokal's Bad Joke", May 21). Fortunately, his
allegations can be refuted in far fewer words.

Fish implies that I am opposed to all sociology of science, and that I
fail to understand the elementary distinction between sociology of science
and science.  Give me a break! I have no objection whatsoever to sociology
of science, which at its best can clarify the important political and
economic issues surrounding science and technology. My only objection is
to _bad_ sociology of science --- numerous examples of which are praised
(!) in my parody article in the spring/summer 1996 issue of _Social Text_.

Fish's discourse on the "social construction" of science and baseball is
amusing, but the situation can be stated much more simply. The laws of
nature are not social constructions; -- more -- the universe existed long
before we did. Our theories about the laws of nature are social
constructions. The goal of science is for the latter to approximate as
closely as possible the former.  Fish seems to agree.

Unfortunately, not everyone in the trendy field of "cultural studies of
science" agrees. In a lecture at the New York Academy of Sciences
(February 7, 1996), _Social Text_ co-editor Andrew Ross said: "I won't
deny that there is a law of gravity. I would nevertheless argue that there
are no laws in nature, there are only laws in society.  Laws are things
that men and women make, and that they can change."  [verbatim quote in my
notes]

What could Ross possibly mean? That the law of gravity is a social law
that men and women can change? Anyone who believes _that_ is invited to
try changing the laws of gravity from the windows of my apartment: I live
on the twenty-first floor. -- more -- Now, perhaps all Ross means is that
our _understanding_ of the laws of physics changes over time; but if
that's what he meant, why didn't he say so, and what's the big deal?

Granted, not even the _Social Text_ editors would deny the existence of an
external world, or claim that "physical `reality' \ldots\ is at bottom a
social and linguistic construct." The fact remains that they published an
article saying exactly this in its first two paragraphs. And despite my
repeated requests during the editorial process for substantive comments,
suggestions and criticisms, none were ever received, just an acceptance
letter.

Concerning my ethics, this issue is treated in detail in my article in the
May/June issue of _Lingua Franca_, so I won't repeat it here. Suffice it
to say that there is a long and honorable tradition, going back at least
to Jonathan Swift, of truth-telling through satire. Doesn't Fish have a
sense of humor?

My goals, however, are utterly serious. I'm a leftist and a feminist and
proud of it; I'm angered by a shoddy "scholarship" that claims to be
left-wing but in fact, through its sophistry and obscurantism, undermines
the prospects for progressive social critique. Like innumerable others
from diverse backgrounds and disciplines, I call for the left to reclaim
its Enlightenment roots.

But let me now shut up: far better to give voice to the humanists and
social scientists who have been flooding my e-mail for the past two weeks,
expressing relief that the nakedness of their local emperors has finally
been exposed. Let's hear their stories about the debate that is now
opening up.

        Sincerely,

        Alan Sokal