The reason that this is important to understand is that Monthly Review
Press decided to sell a Pluto Press book titled "Science and the Retreat
from Reason" on the basis of its "Sokal-like" strengths. There was some
merit to their assumption, but the book itself was an affront to everything
MR
Jim Devine:
we should remember that MR published a long critique of the book by John
Bellamy Foster.
That was only because I contacted John and described the problem to him.
BTW, I think a good case can be made that Sokal is an adherent of critical
realism, which to me seems an important part
I wrote:
we should remember that MR published a long critique of the book by John
Bellamy Foster.
Louis writes:
That was only because I contacted John and described the problem to him.
good for you! his review was excellent (though I haven't read the book).
BTW, I think a good case can be made
The difference is that employers recognized it at the time.
Doug Henwood wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
At the time, beer was considered to be essential nutrition during times of
hard
work.
At the time? You mean it isn't anymore? I've been living my life under a
delusion then!
Doug
At 03:30 PM 1/17/99 +0100, you wrote:
The Wall Street Journal frequently denounces "junk science." By that they
seem to meen expert testimony that supports seeking damages from some
business.
Richard Schmalensee, an MIT economist is testifying for Microsoft
in the antitrust trial. The
MIT is the Hoover Institute of technology.
It houses a group of social scientists who sole purpose in lfe is to preserve
science and technology for the exclusive use of the right wing worldwide. They
think neo-liberals are communists.
Henry C.K. Liu
Jim Devine wrote:
At 03:30 PM 1/17/99
Does this include Noam Chomsky?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
MIT is the Hoover Institute of technology.
It houses a group of social scientists who sole purpose in lfe is to preserve
science and technology for the exclusive use of the right wing worldwide. They
think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For myself, noting and agreeing with the assertion of the general function of
institutions like MIT in capitalist society and as instruments of expanded
reproduction of that system, a few like Noam Chomsky do slip through and
manage to survive.
It was explained to me
I have followed the testimony in this trial, and I am puzzled by the
discussion (there) of monopolistic pricing. Isn't the main model that
of limit pricing? The monopolist would like to charge where P=MRP, but
only charges the limit price to discourage potential competition. Is
there anything
Junk science is, by definition, anything that challenges the perspective of
large corporations. The Nation recently ran a piece on the great watchdog of
junk science, Gina Collata (damn, I can't remember the last name, but she is
Judy Bari's sister).
By the way, I have been collected some notes
MIT would love to kick him out except for the fact that Chomsky got his tenure before
he turned political. He has been heavily criticized for neglecting his original field
of semantics.
Henry C.K. Liu
Ken Hanly wrote:
Does this include Noam Chomsky?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Henry C.K. Liu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_916634342_boundary
For myself, noting and agreeing with the assertion of the general function of
institutions like MIT in capitalist society and as instruments of expanded
reproduction of that system, a few like Noam Chomsky do slip through
Gene Coyle wrote:
The Wall Street Journal frequently denounces "junk science." By that they
seem to meen expert testimony that supports seeking damages from some
business.
What I've discovered that a lot of this preoccupation with "junk science"
has to do with American Indian concerns. Recent
The Wall Street Journal frequently denounces "junk science." By that they
seem to meen expert testimony that supports seeking damages from some
business.
Richard Schmalensee, an MIT economist is testifying for Microsoft
in the antitrust trial. The NY Times quoted him Thursday re
Michael Perelman wrote:
At the time, beer was considered to be essential nutrition during times of
hard
work.
At the time? You mean it isn't anymore? I've been living my life under a
delusion then!
Doug
At the time, beer was considered to be essential nutrition during times of hard
work.
Tom Walker wrote:
Mayhew discusses the increase of beer consumption coincident with wet
weather: "The reason for this increased consumption is obvious; when the
weather prevents workmen from prosecuting
To my eyes, the bitter struggle over "science" demonstrates that, for
those who have advanced beyond religious irrationality, there is still a
need for a hegemonic intellectual framework. Much of the appeal of
classical Marxism, of course, was based on its supposed "scientific"
character.
Mayhew discusses the increase of beer consumption coincident with wet
weather: "The reason for this increased consumption is obvious; when the
weather prevents workmen from prosecuting their respective callings in the
open air, they have recourse to drinking, to pass away the idle time." Later
he
Joseph Green:
So far, although you complain--in essence--that Sokal and
Bricmont have taken passages out of context, you have not
demonstrated itt.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sokal and Bricmont actually do a
rather elegant job of exposing the ridiculous pretensions of
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
Proyect on his participation at the December 1996 Rethinking Marxism
conference in Amherst:
At the opening night's reception, I downed 3 scotches in rapid
succession to put me in the proper frame of mind for the opening
session.
He then went on to make a comment in the discussion period at
21 matches
Mail list logo
