> For a breath of fresh air on this debate about "reality" and
> other associated post modern concepts and their relevance (or
> otherwise) to science try reading "Intelectual Impostures" by
> Alan Sokal, published earlier this year.
Yes,I have read it.The original 'spoof' and the subsequent debate
was interesting reading,but still leaves us without clear and
definitive resolution of some of the fundamental issues,in my
personal judgement.
If there is a spectrum of disciplines,with the certainties of physics
at one extremity,and imaginative fantasy literature at the other,
with psychology,sociology,history,art theory,philosophy,etc, as a
gradation from hard to soft between the extremes,seems to me that
what a subject 'means' to you personally depends upon which end
of the spectrum you start from.Most people are highly specialised
in a particular area,and seem to become very agitated when the
methodologies and ideas of some other discipline appear to stray
across their rather arbitrary intellectual fences.
I think that the postmodern critique has done everyone a service
by throwing light into some murky corners,but I also understand
why it alarms and outrages some folk.What we see has much in
common with the response last century to Darwin's suggestion
that we might not be quite what we had thought we were.Or when
Einstein disturbed the Newtonian consensus,earlier this century.
Screams of horror and indignation,and opposing camps hurling
insults.I think that the intelligent reponse is to look very closely
at the issues and make a serious effort to understand what people
are actually trying to say.It's hard work.
Chris.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|