Doug Henwood wrote:
> Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> >At the time, Doug was pro-Sokal but has shifted all the way in the other
> >direction. His big complaint seems to be that Sokal knew nothing about
> >Lacan and company, whom he sent up in his famous Social Text spoof.
>
> Let me see. It's ok, from the "Marxist" point of view, to make fun of a
> writer about whom you know next to nothing, and whom you've only read in a
> few excerpts provided by others for your amusement? At least Marx read
> MacCullough & Say.
Sokal and Bricmont ridiculed the passages of outrageous
pseudo-scientific nonsense that are common in various postmodernist
authors and other writings today. These are passages that are
supposed to look scientific and profound, but are fraudulent and
meaningless. The fashionable use of such passages has wasted the time
of many readers. It is also used to put certain writings beyond
criticism, as the ordinary reader may believe that they can't
understand these writings only because of their lack of
knowledge about modern science Since these passages are set
forward in the name of science and mathematics, it is useful that
theoretical physicists like Sokal and Bricmont not only attacked
these passages, but stuck to their guns. This aspect of Sokal and
Bricmont's book is very valuable.
Sokal and Bricmont explicitly stated that they were not judging
other aspects of the work of Lacan, etc. It is completely reasonable
for them to attack pseudo-scientific fraud without having to deal
with all aspects of Lacan, etc.
So far, although you complain--in essence--that Sokal and
Bricmont have taken passages out of context, you have not
demonstrated itt. You have not shown that a single passage attacked
by Sokal and Bricmont was taken out of context. You have not shown
that the pseudo-scientific babbling of various authors about things
they are ignorant of is of any value to the pursuit of knowledge.
Thus, while you attack Sokal and Bricmont for only dealing with bits
of the work of certain authors, you yourself have not even dealt with
a concrete bit of Sokal's and Bricmont's work. You have simply
repeated your opinion, without giving anything to back it up.
I don't agree with Sokal and Bricmont on everything, nor do I
think they are Marxists. But their book has done a service for
materialism on two fronts: attacking outrageous intellectual fraud,
and in popularizing the critique of relativism. Despite
disagreements on certain issues (the neglect of dialectics, overdoing
it on the Enlightenment, their lack of idea of how to deal with the
crisis in the left, etc.), I thoroughly enjoyed the book.
--Joseph Green
editor, "Communist Voice"
http://www.flash.net/~comvoice
Joseph Green
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
