>I think it was Ben Friedlander who said that Sokal had no appreciation for
>metaphor.
No kent, it was me, but Ben's two posts express my feelings about that book
perfectly and Carlo's comment that,"In short, Sokal would have to muzzle most
discourse on science, even among scientists." hits the nail. Part of the
problem is that Sokal is spreading his net both too wide and not wide enough
so the inadequacy of the thing gets caught up in its own exaggeration. He
could not cast his net too wide because such an enterprise would have
propelled the project out of its polemical orbit into a much more complex
discussion of 'language', losing sight of his intended targets. He could not
cast the net in a more localised area because this would have shown the
'particular', individual and idiosyncratic, nature of examples and he would
have been unable to make his wider polemical case. As Ben pointed out, if
there are problems with the way D & G, for example, set out their stall then
those problems need to be challenged on their own textual/philosophic merits
- if Sokal is really serious then he should put some effort into it. I'm off
to the football now.
All the best from a wild and windy west country
Tim A.
|