Science vs. Humanities
Michael Bérubé commemorates the 15th anniversary of the Sokal hoax, in a long but well worth reading article in Democracy in which he extends an olive branch to the other side:
So these days, when I talk to my scientist friends, I offer them a deal. I say: I’ll admit that you were right about the potential for science studies to go horribly wrong and give fuel to deeply ignorant and/or reactionary people. And in return, you’ll admit that I was right about the culture wars, and right that the natural sciences would not be held harmless from the right-wing noise machine. And if you’ll go further, and acknowledge that some circumspect, well-informed critiques of actually existing science have merit (such as the criticism that the postwar medicalization of pregnancy and childbirth had some ill effects), I’ll go further too, and acknowledge that many humanists’ critiques of science and reason are neither circumspect nor well-informed. Then perhaps we can get down to the business of how to develop safe, sustainable energy and other social practices that will keep the planet habitable.
6 Comments:
I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. He was right obviously, but who in the real world, apart from impressionable rich kids, believed that crap in the first place?
There's a long list of academic cults that have tried to gain legitimacy through jargon and pseudoscientific posturing, with psychology, anthropology, and sociology serial offenders.
James Randi is, I think worth paying attention to in this regard. A note (not by him) on atheism and his organization's relationship with theists is here.
I've got no problem with skepticism - for me it is the heart of civilization and the foundation of humility.
Militant atheism, with its tone of certainty and denunciation of alternative views strikes me not as a skeptical enterprise, but as a dogmatic one. And I say to them what I say to all the other dogmatists - please continue to hold.
Again with the militant atheism? Did I miss something in this article?
There's a long list of academic cults that have tried to gain legitimacy through jargon and pseudoscientific posturing, with psychology, anthropology, and sociology serial offenders.
Add another to the list: physics. String Theory has been victim to its own Sokal-like punking.
I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. He was right obviously, but who in the real world, apart from impressionable rich kids, believed that crap in the first place?
So... *cough* about Feyerabend...
Yeah, well, I was just being provocative there.
Did I mention I don't agree with militant atheism?
I don't agree with it.
Just in case I hadn't mentioned that.
Did I mention that I don't agree with militant atheism, either? Which is why I get annoyed when people project their views onto me.
Post a Comment
<< Home