>Or >read the first paragraph or two of Sokal's piece, which claims that >physical reality doesn't exist - more music to the social constructionists. >Ain't true either. That Social Text fell for the hoax was funny, but it >also revealed some serious intellectual problems with the social >constructionists' position that they have apparently still not >acknowledged. > >Doug I don't agree with either of these claims. (1) No "social constructionist" that I know of denies physical reality. The question is, what's our epistemological relationship with this physical reality. All we know of it, all we experience of it, and all we can say about it, are mediated by culture, by discourse, that is, language *and practice*. [Similarly, anyone who claims that discourse is just language doesn't understand discourse: as Wittgenstein pointed out, language is [embedded in] practice -- practical activity, or as Marx called it, praxis.] It is interesting that the antis are so prone to make this claim, that pomos don't believe in physical reality. It is *so* much easier to attack a straw theory. (2) That SOCIAL TEXT fell for the hoax may reveal some intellectual problems with SOCIAL TEXT (their review process, or their familiarity with the state of scientific research), but I think it says very little about the questions raised in the science wars. In other words, the "hoax" by Sokal was an effective propaganda tool in the situationist mode, but in and of itself proves nothing (and contributes only marginally) to the real debate, which is not moved forward in the least by such statements as Doug's first claim above. Putting the stupidest possible interpretation on a theory or deliberately misreading it may be an effective way of winning an argument but does little to increase our understanding. Regards, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
