I take David's point about satire: this was the original (and funny)
point to Sokal. I certainly laughed when I first heard of it.
The reaction from critics was also, more than occasionally, po-faced
*However*, Intellectual Impostures is another matter. First, they are
either ignorant (no), stupid (no) or wilfully misunderstanding
(yes) some of the people they attack. eg Latour (or is in my view,
contra David Woods, perfectly understandable). Second, there is a
rather nasty stench from the reception of the book which is twofold:
a) in the context of the woefully impoverished 'science wars' debate,
it is grist to the mill of certain self-publicists (eg Wolpert)
looking for something to kick, usually sociology of science, which
they see as undermining science. Science may be in crisis, but that
has nothing to do with the sociology of science (if only
sociologists had such influence!)
b) Intellectual Impostures fitted in with a sourly unpleasant
francophobia that the UK broadsheets sometimes manifest. reviewing
the book (even its appearance in editorials) allowed the reviewers to
both knock the French AND apparently dip into highbrow debate.
Intellectual Impostures: a story, then, of xenophobia, hypocrisy and
easily bruised egos
cheers,
Jon
> Date sent: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:37:49 +0100
> Subject: Re: Philosophy of Sciences
> From: David Wood <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Send reply to: David Wood <[log in to unmask]>
> Just briefly on Intellectual Impostures etc:
>
> I think the original article was a valuable contribution. I would define it
> as satire rather than dishonesty. The good thing about satire is that it
> has the unique ability to puncture over-inflated egos (cf: Chris Morris and
> 'Brass Eye'). What is more it generally cannot work without the
> collaboration of the 'victims' - the original article would not have been
> half so interesting if it had not been published by Social Text (or another
> such journal). If the editors and referees had been half as clever and
> insightful as they thought they were they would have spotted it, which is
> half the point.
> Finally... it's funny! (Well, I thought so). We have to laugh at ourselves
> sometimes, and not get too over-earnest about the importance and value of
> what we all do.
>
> Intellectual Impostures itself contains some telling criticism of extreme
> relativism, however it also has the tendency to go over the top and lump
> many very considered writers in with the real culprits. They completely
> misunderstand what Latour is trying to say for instance (but then I suppose
> that is not difficult - I'm not always sure what he's saying either in
> French or in English!). In addition, as a polemic, it has lost all the
> humour of the original article. But still worth reading...
>
>
> David.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> David Wood
> PhD Research Student ('Intelligence Sites in Rural North Yorkshire')
> Centre for Rural Economy
> Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing
> University of Newcastle upon Tyne
> NE1 7RU
>
> 0191 222 5305
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|