Jim Clark wrote:
> I have read with great interest the various postings related to
> the possible Eurocentric nature of our beliefs about punishment
> because I have been reading about culture and epistemology for
> the past year or so. In fact Michael Sylvester's position is one
> that I think we will have to deal with more and more in coming
> years. That is, people will be challenging not only our findings
> but also our ways of finding out (i.e., the natural science
> approach).
This is nothing more than a "sense" that I have, but my feeling is that
this problem has already peaked, and is beginning to disappear. Of course,
my sense of the peak corresponds with the publication of the Gross and
Levitt book ("Higher Superstition", 1993, if I remember correctly), and so
may be nothing more than my reaction to that book. But notice that the major
works are dated - Harding's piece is from 1986, and the Rorty book
(Contingency, Irony and Solidarity) was published in 1989. Furthermore, the
mainstream media (e.g., NYTimes) publish far more criticism of the
postmodernist/feminist/multiculturalist "critiques" of science than they do
the critiques themselves. The academic journals have an even balance at
worst. And the Alan Sokal parody, which surely devastated the postmodernist
position was widely reported in the popular media, forcing the journal
editors to publish their desperate defense ("Science Wars").
Sure there are more recent books still claiming that science is somehow
merely a social construction. But I'll bet that if we heard from the
mainstream publishers' developmental editors, we'd hear that such books are
a pretty hard sell these days. I suspect that they're widely recognized as
tired arguments that failed to stand up to the light of day, except by the
inevitable isolated few (the academic equivalent of the fabled Japanese
soldiers holed up alone on their islands, unaware that the war was over
years ago). :)
Optimistically yours...
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
