From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9605" Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 12:24 PM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:38:46 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Baber Zaheer Subject: new book (fwd) Forwarded message: >From daemon Wed May 1 18:21:13 1996 X-ListName: Science & Technical Studies Discussion Group Warnings-To: <> Errors-To: owner-sts@CCTR.UMKC.EDU Sender: owner-sts@CCTR.UMKC.EDU Message-ID: <199605010850.QAA31734@leonis.nus.sg> Subject: new book To: sts@cctr.umkc.edu Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 16:50:42 +0800 (SST) From: "Baber Zaheer" Reply-To: STS@CCTR.UMKC.EDU X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text A new book in the SUNY Series in _Science, Technology and Society_ (Sal Restivo and Jennifer Croissant, Series Editors) Zaheer Baber, _The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization and Colonial Rule in India_ (Albany,NY: State University of New York Press, 1996) 320 pages US$ 23.95 paperback ISBN 0-7914-290-2 US$ 71.50 hardcover ISBN 0-7914-2919-2 >From the official blurb: "In _The Science of Empire_ Zaheer Baber analyzes the social context of the origins and development of science and technology in India from antiquity through colonialism to the modern period. The focus is on the two-way interaction between science and society: how specific social and cultural factors led to the emergence of specific scientific/technological knowledge systems and institutions that transformed the very social conditions that produced them. A key feature is the author's analysis of the role of pre-colonial trading circuits and other institutional factors in transmitting scientific and technological knowledge from India to other civilizational complexes. A significant portion represents an analysis of the role of modern science and technology in the consolidation of the British empire in India." "Baber has a good grasp of the recent secondary literature, and he writes well. This will become a standard book in the burgeoning field of science and imperialism." Lewis Pyenson, Universite de Montreal. (Author of _The Empire of Reason_ and other works on the social history of science and empire) "This macro level study is certainly meritorious in itself, but more importantly it provides an important link between studies of ancient, medieval and contemporary India....this study would be extremely useful for students to grasp the complexity and contradictions of colonial domination. This book can be fruitfully used for courses in sociology of science to complement the theoretical studies of western science and technology development. I feel that the paucity of books providing such a broad picture of science and technology in India would make it attractive to anyone interested in South Asia or science and technology in underdeveloped countries." Sripad D. Deo, Colorado State University. "Baber provides a balanced and thoughtful account of the development of science and technology in India. He delineates the religious and practical impetuses for the development of science and technology in ancient and medieval India and the cultural influences that shaped its course and direction. The book is extremely readable, well written, and contains fascinating examples." Henry Etzkowitz, SUNY at Purchase. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:43:57 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: History of Computing email forum From: Jon Agar To: shothc-l@sivm.bitnet, mersenne@mailbase.ac.uk Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 10:42:08 BST Subject: new history of computing list Priority: normal X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave mersenne' to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk Reply-To: Jon Agar Sender: mersenne-request@mailbase.ac.uk Precedence: list A new email distribution list has been set up to carry information and discussion on history of computing events in the UK. To join send the following message to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk : join history-of-computing-uk eg: join history-of-computing-uk Alan Turing if you have any problems, then please contact me off-list at agar@fs4.ma.man.ac.uk cheers, Jon Agar National Archive for the History of Computing Manchester University __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | Process Press publications: | http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 16:13:11 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: All-London HPS meeting: The Role of Constructivism... CHSTM (Imperial College), Centre for the Philosophy of the Natural and Social Sciences (LSE), and Unit for the History of Medicine (Wellcome Institute) All_London HPS Meeting The Role of Constructivism in Current Studies of Science Friday 24 May 10-17.30 at The Wellcome Institute, 183 Euston Road, London 10-11.50 Jerry Ravetz (LSE) "The social processes of the achievement of genuine scientific knowledge" David Bloor (Edinburgh University) "What is a social construct?" 11.50-12.10 Coffee 12.10-13.00 Arthur Fine (Northwestern University) "On the social in science" 13.00-14.30 Lunch 14.30-16.20 Hilary Rose (Open University) "Mine enemy's enemies are - only perhaps - my friends" Iwan Morus (Queens University, Belfast) "Historicising scientific practice: social constructivism, bodies and material culture" 16.20-16.40 Tea 16.40-17.30 Michael Lynch (Brunel University) "The myth of constructivist analysis in social studies of science" Enquiries: tel 0171 955 7573, email: PHILCENT@lse.ac.uk __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | Process Press publications: | http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:58:14 EDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Caroline Wagner Subject: Re: Publications on science and international affairs In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 12 Apr 96 10:11:50 GMT. <199604120953.CAA04496@rand.org> Would appreciate any references to publications (within the past 3 years) discussing the impact of scientific and technological developments as they are affecting or will affect international relations or global relations. Thanks. Caroline Wagner RAND Caroline_Wagner@rand.org ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 11:27:19 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Technothings Update Technothings the interactive sci-tech studies site from the University of Durham will again be updated on Tuesday 24 of May. Within its 5 sections you can find the following: NOTICE BOARD - Requests for information and assistance plus some conference announcements LINKS - Links to some of the newest and most useful sci-tech pages on the web SIGN ME UP - Direct subscription to 12 different news groups WE WANT YOU - How to contribute to Technothings 263 - A collection of papers and essays on the following topics: An overview of Technothings by Steve Fuller including introductory comments, a reading list and some rather good essays on the social studies of science. Paul Edwards talks about the demise of the Stanford STS program Eileen Gebbie reviews Andrew Pickerings "The Mangle of Practice" Tim Rogers discusses the growth of STS and its ability to influence policy Jane Park on the development of scientific progress Tim Rogers asks whether scientific knowledge is different from other forms of social knowledge Andy Pickering talks about his current research project Steve Fuller brings the consequences of automation home by looking at its implications for how academics conduct business. Emily Watkinson discusses the current BSE scare in the UK and the failure to understand the historical and sociological dimensions of scientific enterprise Simon Brown considers why the "Age of Enlightenment" was such a big deal As well as the ability to contact the author directly for feedback or questions by clicking on the 'mail' icon at the head of each paper, there is now the facility to download these papers directly by clicking on the 'disk' icon. You can find Technothings at: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dss8zz2/tec.htm __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | Process Press publications: | http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:17:54 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Canguilhem Conference Conference Announcement: THE NORMAL AND THE PATHOLOGICAL: Life, Disease, Cure - A conference in honour of the memory of Georges Canguilhem sponsored by Economy and Society Saturday 14 September 1996 (9.30 - 5.30) at SOAS, University of London Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG Speakers include: Paul Rabinow, Ian Hacking, Colin Gordon, Mike Gane, Richard Horton, Camille Limoges, Nikolas Rose, Graham Burchell and Francois Delaporte. Conference fee (including tea, coffee and lunch): #35.00 (or #15.00 concessionary). Further details and registration forms from: Professor Nikolas Rose, Goldsmiths College, University of London, SE14 6NW, UK (Tel: 0171 919 7770; Fax: 0171 919 7773; e-mail n.rose@gold.ac.uk). General inquiries to Dr Thomas Osborne, Department of Sociology, University of Bristol, BS8 1UQ, UK (Tel: 0117 928 7507; Fax: 0117 970 6022; e-mail thomas.osborne@bris.ac.uk). __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | Process Press publications: | http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 09:29:15 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Heather Munro Prescott, Department of History" Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 15 May 1996 to 21 May 1996 I can't get to the "Technothings" site -- my web server keeps telling me it's a bad address. Help! --Heather Prescott ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 14:05:12 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: The World's Classic Literature on line Ian Pitchford - to whom so much is owed for creating Inter-Psych, Global-Psych and many other internet initiatives - has been scouring the net to create an archive of classic texts. The site is growing all the time. Here are the contents so far. Once again, much is also owed to the Sheffield University server. Tapestry: An Archive of the World's Most Influential Literature Classic texts: Darwin, The Bible, Shekespeare, Adam Smith, The Koran, etc., etc.http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/Tapestry/index.html Shakespeare The Complete Works Voltaire Candide Religious Texts Islam The Koran Christianity The Holy Bible Search the Bible Buddhism The Enlightenment The Noble Eightfold Path Confucianism The Doctrine of the Mean The Analects The Great Learning Hinduism The Bhagavad Gita The Laws of Manu Egyptian The Egyptian Book of the Dead Philosophy Aristotle Categories Dreams On Interpretation Metaphysics Nicomachaen Ethics Politics Machiavelli The Prince Plato The Republic Timaeus Science Darwin On the Origin Of Species The Descent of Man Wallace On the Law that has Regulated the Introduction of New Species On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type Society Marx and Engels The Communist Manifesto Smith The Wealth of Nations __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | Process Press publications: | http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 14:40:03 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: fish on sokal pt 1 Sent from a colleague, David Moore. > STANLEY FISH: This deception brings a brief fame > -------------------------------------------------------------------= --- > > Copyright =A9 1996 Nando.net > Copyright =A9 1996 N.Y. Times News Service > > DURHAM, N.C. (May 21, 1996 2:11 p.m. EDT) -- When the editors of > Social Text accepted an essay purporting to link developments in > quantum mechanics with the formulations of postmodern thought, they > could not have anticipated that on the day of its publication the > author, Alan Sokal, a physicist at New York University, would be > announcing in the pages of another journal, Lingua Franca, that the > whole thing had been an elaborate hoax. > > He had made it all up, he said, and gloated that his "prank" proved > that sociologists and humanists who spoke of science as a "social > construction" didn't know what they were talking about. > > Acknowledging the ethical issues raised by his deception, Sokal > declared it had been justified by the importance of the truths he w= as > defending from postmodernist attack: "There is a world; its propert= ies > are not merely social constructions; facts and evidence do matter. > What sane person would contend otherwise?" > > Exactly! Sokal's question should alert us to the improbability of t= he > scenario he conjures up: Scholars with impeccable credentials makin= g > statements no sane person could credit. The truth is that none of h= is > targets would ever make such statements. > > What sociologists of science say is that of course the world is rea= l > and independent of our observations but that accounts of the world = are > produced by observers and are therefore relative to their capacitie= s, > education, training, etc. It is not the world or its properties but > the vocabularies in whose terms we know them that are socially > constructed -- fashioned by human beings -- which is why our > understanding of those properties is continually changing. > > Distinguishing fact from fiction is surely the business of science, > but the means of doing so are not perspicuous in nature -- for if t= hey > were, there would be no work to be done. Consequently, the history = of > science is a record of controversies about what counts as evidence = and > how facts are to be established. > > Those who concern themselves with this history neither dispute the > accomplishments of science nor deny the existence or power of > scientific procedure. They just maintain and demonstrate that the > nature of scientific procedure is a question continually debated in > its own precincts. > > What results is an incredibly complex and rich story, full of honor > for scientists, and this is the story sociologists of science are > trying to tell and get right. > > Why then does Sokal attack them? The answer lies in two > misunderstandings. First, Sokal takes "socially constructed" to mea= n > "not real," whereas for workers in the field "socially constructed"= is > a compliment paid to a fact or a procedure that has emerged from th= e > welter of disciplinary competition into a real and productive life > where it can be cited, invoked and perhaps challenged. It is no > contradiction to say that something is socially constructed and als= o > real. > > Perhaps a humble example from the world of baseball will help make = the > point. Consider the following little catechism: > > Are there balls and strikes in the world? Yes. > > Are there balls and strikes in nature (if by nature you understand > physical reality independent of human actors)? No. > > Are balls and strikes socially constructed? Yes. > > Are balls and strikes real? Yes. > > Do some people get $3.5 million either for producing balls and stri= kes > or for preventing their production? Yes. > > So balls and strikes are both socially constructed and real, social= ly > constructed and consequential. The facts about ball and strikes are > also real but they can change, as they would, for example, if > baseball's rule makers were to vote tomorrow that from now on it's > four strikes and you're out. > > But that's just the point, someone might object. "Sure the facts of > baseball, a human institution that didn't exist until the 19th > century, are socially constructed. But scientists are concerned wit= h > facts that were there before anyone looked through a microscope. An= d > besides, even if scientific accounts of facts can change, they don'= t > change by majority vote." > > This appears to make sense, but the distinction between baseball an= d > science is not finally so firm. On the baseball side, the social > construction of the game assumes and depends on a set of establishe= d > scientific facts. That is why the pitcher's mound is not 400 feet f= rom > the plate. Both the shape in which we have the game and the shapes = in > which we couldn't have it are strongly related to the world's > properties. > > On the science side, although scientists don't take formal votes to > decide what facts will be considered credible, neither do they pres= ent > their competing accounts to nature and receive from her an immediat= e > and legible verdict. > > Rather they hazard hypotheses that are then tested by other workers= in > the field in the context of evidentiary rules, which may themselves= be > altered in the process. Verdicts are then given by publications and > research centers whose judgments and monies will determine the way = the > game goes for a while. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 14:40:05 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: fish on sokal #2 > > Both science and baseball then are mixtures of adventuresome > inventiveness and reliance on established norms and mechanisms of > validation, and the facts yielded by both will be social constructions > and be real. > > Baseball and science may be both social constructions, but not all > social constructions are the same. > > First, there is the difference in purpose -- to refine physical skills > and entertain, on the one hand, and to solve problems of a theoretical > and practical kind, on the other. From this difference flow all the > other differences, in the nature of the skills involved, the quality > of the attention required, the measurements of accomplishment, the > system of reward, and on and on. > > Even if two activities are alike social constructions, if you want to > take the measure of either, it is the differences you must keep in > mind. > > This is what Sokal does not do, and this is his second mistake. He > thinks that the sociology of science is in competition with mainstream > science -- wants either to replace it or debunk it -- and he doesn't > understand that it is a distinct enterprise, with objects of study, > criteria, procedures and goals all of its own. > > Sociologists of science aren't trying to do science. They are trying > to come up with a rich and powerful explanation of what it means to do > it. > > Their question is, "What are the conditions that make scientific > accomplishments possible?" and answers to that question are not > intended to be either substitutes for scientific work or arguments > against it. > > When Sokal declares that "theorizing about 'the social construction of > reality' won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS," he is at > once right and wrong. > > He is right that sociologists will never do the job assigned properly > to scientists. He is wrong to imply that the failure of the sociology > of science to do something it never set out to do is a mark against > it. > > My point is finally a simple one: A research project that takes the > practice of science as an object of study is not a threat to that > practice because, committed as it is to its own goals and protocols, > it doesn't reach into, and therefore doesn't pose a danger to, the > goals and protocols it studies. > > Just as the criteria of an enterprise will be internal to its own > history, so will the threat to its integrity be internal, posed not by > presumptuous outsiders but by insiders who decide not to play by the > rules or to put the rules in the service of a devious purpose. > > This means that it is Sokal, not his targets, who threatens to > undermine the intellectual standards he vows to protect. Remember, > science is above all a communal effort. No scientist -- and for that > matter, no sociologist or literary critic -- begins his task by > inventing anew the facts he will assume, the models he will regard as > exemplary and the standards he tries to be faithful to. > > They are all given by the tradition of inquiry he has joined, and for > the most part he must take them on faith. And he must take on faith, > too, the reports offered to him by colleagues, all of whom are in the > same position, unable to start from scratch and therefore dependent on > the information they receive from fellow researchers. > > Indeed, some professional physicists who take Sokal on faith report > finding his arguments plausible. > > The large word for all this is "trust," and in his "A Social History > of Truth," Steven Shapin poses the relevant (rhetorical) question: > "How could coordinated activity of any kind be possible if people > could not rely upon others' undertakings?" > > Sokal put forward his own undertakings as reliable, and he took care, > as he boasts, to surround his deception with all the marks of > authenticity, including dozens of "real" footnotes and an introductory > section that enlists a roster of the century's greatest scientists in > support of a line of argument he says he never believed in. > > He carefully packaged his deception so as not to be detected except by > someone who began with a deep and corrosive attitude of suspicion that > may now be in full flower in the offices of learned journals because > of what he has done. > > In a 1989 report published in The Proceedings of the National Academy > of Science, fraud is said to go "beyond error to erode the foundation > of trust on which science is built." > > That is Sokal's legacy, one likely to be longer lasting than the brief > fame he now enjoys for having successfully pretended to be himself. > > (Stanley Fish is professor of English and law at Duke University and > executive director of the Duke University Press, which publishes the > journal Social Text. His most recent book is "Professional > Correctness.") > > http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/voices/052196/voices14_20916.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 17:55:47 EDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "JESPERSEN, NEIL D" Subject: Re: fish on sokal #2 In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of Wed, 22 May 1996 16:40:05 EDT Is Prof Sokal on this list so that he may respond? As a professional chemist, I have seen several similar events in chemical journals. Interestingly, they have never resulted in the sort of attack that I have just witnessed. Instead it has served as a wake up call to our own diciplines that the peer review system has failed and needs some work. Someone's ox has been gored! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 17:22:07 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: elizabeth green Subject: Re: fish on sokal #2 In-Reply-To: <199605222223.RAA29988@obslave.ucs.indiana.edu> I had heard of such similar events in scientific journals, and agree that on its face, Sokal's mock article appears to be a similar tactic. However, I think there's an important difference that justifies Fish's response (which was very eloquent, I think): Sokal's main target was not really a bureaucratic system (peer review for a journal), but a system of intellectual beliefs (social constructivism). Sokal's empassioned invocation of his leftist politics in the _Lingua Franca_ piece shows this to be true -- _Social Text's_ peer review mechanism was not the true target. Likewise, in his response, Fish's purpose was not to defend the peer review system at that journal. But Dr. Jespersen is right about this: the shots fired in the on-going "science wars" smart, and while this may be silly, this issue was at least considered serious enough to address in the op-ed page of the New York Times and on NPR. We haven't had that kind of left-handed compliment since they thought the Unabomber was a historian of science. Elizabeth Green Dept of History & Philosophy of Science Indiana University ejgreen@indiana.edu On Wed, 22 May 1996, JESPERSEN, NEIL D wrote: > Is Prof Sokal on this list so that he may respond? As a professional > chemist, I have seen several similar events in chemical journals. > Interestingly, they have never resulted in the sort of attack that I > have just witnessed. Instead it has served as a wake up call to our > own diciplines that the peer review system has failed and needs some > work. Someone's ox has been gored! > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:19:59 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Howard S. Schwartz" Subject: SaC: Re: Fish on Sokal List members may wish to see the article that Fish is responding to. For my own part, it seems to me the fact that a literary scholar like Fish has become so distraught that he has lost the capacity to distinguish between parody and fraud shows that Sokal has hit the mark. The lesson to be learned, I would think, is that it takes more to properly pronounce on science than having a political axe to grind. Howard Schwartz Schwartz@oakland.edu >Copyright New York Times >5/17/96 > >Postmodern Gravity Deconstructed, Slyly > >By JANNY SCOTT > >A New York University physicist, fed up with what he sees as the excesses of >the academic left, hoodwinked a well-known journal Into publishing a parody >thick with gibberish as though it were serious scholarly work. > >The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative >Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravlty," appeared this month in Social Text, a >journal that helped invent the trendy, sometimes baffling field of cultural >studies. > >Now the physicist, Alan Sokal, Is gloating. And the editorial collectlve that >publishes the journal says it sorely regrets its mistake. But the journal's >co-founder says Professor Sokal Is confused. > >"He says we're epistemic relativists," complained Stanley Aronowitz, the >co-founder and a professor at CUNY. "We're not. He got it wrong. One of the >reasons he got It wrong lo he's III-read and halt-educated." > >The dispute over the article- which was read by several editors at the >journal before it was published-goes to the heart of the public debate over >left-wing scholarship, and particularly over the belles that social, cultural >and political conditions Influence and may even determine knowledge and Ideas >about what Is truth. > >In this case, Professor Sokal, 41, intended to attack some of the work of >social scientists and humanists In the field of cultural studies, the >exploration of culture -and, In recent years, science- for coded ideological >meaning. > >In a way, this Is one more skirmish in the culture wars, the battles over >multiculturalism and college curriculums and whether there is a single >objective truth or just many differing points of view. > >Conservatives have argued that I there is truth, or at least an approach I to >truth, and that scholars have a responsibility to pursue it. They have >accused the academic left of debasing scholarship for political ends. > >"While my method was satirical, my motivation is utterly serious," Professor >Sokal wrote in a separate article in the current issue of the magazine Lingua >Franca, in which he revealed the hoax and detailed his "intellectual and >political" motivations. > >"What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy >thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: >one that denies the existence of [objective realities," he wrote in Lingua >Franca. > >In an interview, Professor Sokal, who describes himself as "a leftist in |the >old-fashioned sense," said he |worried that the trendy disciplines land >obscure jargon could end up [hurting the leftist cause. "By losing contact >with the real world, you undermine the prospect for progressive social >critique," he said. > >Norman Levitt, a professor of mathematics at Rutgers University and an author >of a book on science and the academic left that first brought the new >critique of science to Professor Sokal's attention, yesterday called the hoax >"a lot of fun and a source of a certain amount of personal satisfaction." > >"I don't want to claim that it proves that all social scientists or all >English professors are complete idiots, but it does betray a certain >arrogance and a certain out-of-touchness on the part of a certain clique >inside academic life," he said. > >Professor Sokal, who describes himself as "a leftist and a feminist" who once >spent his summers teaching mathematics in Nicaragua, said he became concerned >several years ago about what academics in cultural studies were saying about >science. > >"I didn't know people were using deconstructive literary criticism not only >to study Jane Austen but to study quantum mechanics," he said yesterday. >Then, he said, he read "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its >Quarrel With Science" by Professor Levitt and Paul R. Gross. > >Professor Sokal said the book which analyzes the critique of science, >prompted him to begin reading work by the critics themselves. "I realized it >would be boring to write a detailed refutation of these people," he said. So, >he said, he decided to parody them. > >"I structured the article around the silliest quotes about mathematics and >physics from the most prominent academics, and I invented an argument >praising them and linking them together," he said. "All this was very easy to >carry off because my argument wasn't obliged to respect any standards of >evidence or logic." > >To a lay person, the article appears to be an impenetrable hodge-podge of >jargon, buzzwords, footnotes and other references to the works of the likes >of Jacques Derrida and Professor Aronowitz. Words like hegemony, >counterhegemonic and epistemological abound. > >In it, Professor Sokal wrote: "It has thus become increasingly apparent that >physical 'reality,' no less than social 'reality,' is at bottom a social and >linguistic construct; that scientific 'knowledge,' far from being objective, >reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the >culture that produced it." > >Andrew Ross, a co-editor of Social Text who also happens to be a professor at >N.Y.U., said yesterday that about a half-dozen editors at the journal dealt >with Professor Sokal's unsolicited manuscript. While it appeared "a little >hokey," they decided to publish it in a special issue they called Science >Wars, he said. > >"We read it as the earnest attempt of a professional scientist to seek some >sort of philosophical justification for his work," said Professor. Ross, >director of the American studies program at N.Y.U. "In other words, it was >about the relationship between philosophy and physics:`' > >Now Professor Ross says he regrets having published the article: ' But he >said Professor Sokal misunderstood the ideas of the people he" was trying to >expose. "These are caricatures of complex scholarship," he said. > >Professor Aronowitz, a sociologist and director of the Center for Cultural >Studies at CUNY, said Professor Sokal seems to believe that the people he is >parodying deny the existence of the real world. "They never deny the real >world," Professor Aronowitz said. "They are talking about whether meaning can >be de-rived from observation of the real world." > >Professor Ross said it would be a' shame if the hoax obscured the broader >issues his journal sought to address, "that scientific knowledge is affected >by social and culture conditions and is not a version of some universal truth >that is the same in all times and places." > >******************************** >Coiled Gibberish in a Thicket of Prose > >Following is an excerpt from "Transgressing the Boundaries," a~ parody by >Prof. Alan D. Sokal of New York University that was published in the social >science journal Social Text as a serious article. > >"Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step further, by taking >account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of >physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's general >relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we >shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical >reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational >conceptual categories of prior science-among them, existence itself-become >problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has >profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory >science." > >***************************** > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:26:55 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Frank E. Durham" Subject: Peer review, sokaled A couple of comments about subphilosophical aspects of the Sokal-Ross affair: The question of peer review has been raised. This has been for a long time a topic for physicists, where the typical complaints to Physics Today or APS News are against anonymity and conflict of interest. For interdisciplinary science-plus-theory papers/books there is the more fundamental problem of defining, and finding, peers. (A then-prominent attorney here in New Orleans affected to minimize the significance of his Federal conviction for defrauding his partners, saying that the jury were not his peers; presumably he wanted twelve other politically-connected con men.) So peer review rather than the simpler editorial review is not a cure-all. But editors out there should be aware that there are scientists who would agree to read interdisciplinary submissions. We already do it sometimes, when asked. But finding a panel of hostile left-wing trickster field theorists, say, might take a while. And this. Alan Sokal's article in Lingua Franca gave no hint--to me--that he distinguishes the significance of an interdisciplinary think piece for its audience, from that of a physics journal article for its readers. Physics journal articles (see Charles Bazerman, "Shaping Written Knowledge," for starters) ordinarily issue unproblematically as internal to the community of scholars/researchers/peers who publish there. Just for this reason an article implicates the community and not the author alone: it matters to other contributors that nothing absurd should appear. Never mind that the model of free inquiry says otherwise (and this is a third class of complaints raised, usually by nonprofessionals, against the peer review system). That unreviewed electronic preprints have acquired currency in some physics subfields only supports the inference that Sokal may have miscontrued the role of author, and of editor. I was surprised to learn, some years ago, that outside the sciences a paper might be ignored strategically, because it is thought to be silly or because the author is regarded as beyond the pale. What would have been the natural fate of Sokal's article in the quasi-community of theory + theory (scientific + literary or + social-scientific), had he not intervened? It seems evident to me that strong interdisciplinarity resists community _as interdisciplinarity_. Taming interdisciplinarity into departments brings a new set of problems. Murray Krieger's memoir "The Institution of Theory" gives one perspective on this. And the Stanford STS crisis is a case in point. But now I am on the verge of meddling. Best wishes to all, Frank Durham ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 22:40:19 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Sander J Gliboff Subject: SaC: Re: Fish on Sokal In-Reply-To: <96May22.182448edt.851-6@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> My hat is off to Stanley Fish for finding a way to construct credulous simplicity as a virtue. I didn't think it could be done. The editors of _Social Text_ indeed cannot be accused of harboring any "deep and corrosive attitude of suspicion." They are helping to make academia a kinder, gentler place. --Sander Gliboff Dept. of History of Science Johns Hopkins University 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218 gliboff@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 07:53:35 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Shein Subject: Re: SaC: Re: Fish on Sokal S. Gliboff writes: "My hat is off to Stanley Fish for finding a way to construct credulous simplicity as a virtue. I didn't think it could be done. The editors of _Social Text_ indeed cannot be accused of harboring any "deep and corrosive attitude of suspicion." They are helping to make academia a kinder, gentler place." Perhaps. No doubt their publication of Sokal's piece evidences a lack of suspicion. And I suppose Fish made credulous simplicity a virtue- though I am not really sure I know what this means. But let of focus for a moment on Sokal. I take there to be two strains to his critique of the Postmodern view of science. I take his "article" in _S.T._ to be an attempt to articulate these two strains of criticism. I also think his submission of this "article" raises some interesting ethical issues. Others have noticed and discussed thus last bit; the matter of the content of Sokal's criticism has gone pretty much untouched. The first strain is what we might call the REALIST strain- the strain which concerns the nature of reality. Fish does an admirable job, I think, in handling this criticism. (I, for one, am deeply sympathetic to the view that baseball and science are different in degree and not in kind.) The second strain is what we might call the METHODOLOGICAL STRAIN. This one concerns the manner in which the academics who tend to publidh in _ST_ write. It is an obfuscatory manner which, Sokal thinks, focuses concern on language and rhetoricand thereby leads academics to sidestep issues and concern themselves with language. I take Sokal's point to be as much a critique of this manner of intellectual and academic dealing as it is as a critique of the content of the dealings done by the academic left. Insofar as I am sympathetic to this line of criticism, I tend to disagree with Gliboff- the editors of _ST_ are not making academia a kinder and gentler place. They are rather obfuscating issues and making academia a denser thinket than it already is. David Shein CUNY Graduate Center and Lehman College ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 13:12:50 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: From Sokal Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:37:01 -0400 From: sokal@acf4.NYU.EDU (Alan Sokal) To: njlevitt@haven.ios.com, njlevitt@math.rutgers.edu Subject: Oops, let me try again ... Dear friends, Here's the latest news from the NY Times: After giving Stanley Fish 38 column inches (not including graphics) to misrepresent my views, and giving Bruce Robbins and Andrew Ross an additional 4 column inches to restate their own views and mildly misrepresent mine, the NYT letters editor (Kris Wells, 212-556-1873) has refused to print my 12-column-inch reply. She said I could have only 7.3 column inches. Since such drastic compression would make a travesty of my letter, I refused. Here, for your interest, is the letter the NYT refused to print. Feel free to distribute it. Best, Alan Sokal To the editor: It's not every day that a mere theoretical physicist such as myself has the honor of being subjected to a half-page personal attack by the august Stanley Fish ("Professor Sokal's Bad Joke", May 21). Fortunately, his allegations can be refuted in far fewer words. Fish implies that I am opposed to all sociology of science, and that I fail to understand the elementary distinction between sociology of science and science. Give me a break! I have no objection whatsoever to sociology of science, which at its best can clarify the important political and economic issues surrounding science and technology. My only objection is to _bad_ sociology of science --- numerous examples of which are praised (!) in my parody article in the spring/summer 1996 issue of _Social Text_. Fish's discourse on the "social construction" of science and baseball is amusing, but the situation can be stated much more simply. The laws of nature are not social constructions; the universe existed long before we did. Our theories about the laws of nature are social constructions. The goal of science is for the latter to approximate as closely as possible the former. Fish seems to agree. Unfortunately, not everyone in the trendy field of "cultural studies of science" agrees. In a lecture at the New York Academy of Sciences (February 7, 1996), _Social Text_ co-editor Andrew Ross said: "I won't deny that there is a law of gravity. I would nevertheless argue that there are no laws in nature, there are only laws in society. Laws are things that men and women make, and that they can change." [verbatim quote in my notes] What could Ross possibly mean? That the law of gravity is a social law that men and women can change? Anyone who believes _that_ is invited to try changing the laws of gravity from the windows of my apartment: I live on the twenty-first floor. Now, perhaps all Ross means is that our _understanding_ of the laws of physics changes over time; but if that's what he meant, why didn't he say so, and what's the big deal? Granted, not even the _Social Text_ editors would deny the existence of an external world, or claim that "physical `reality' \ldots\ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct." The fact remains that they published an article saying exactly this in its first two paragraphs. And despite my repeated requests during the editorial process for substantive comments, suggestions and criticisms, none were ever received, just an acceptance letter. Concerning my ethics, this issue is treated in detail in my article in the May/June issue of _Lingua Franca_, so I won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that there is a long and honorable tradition, going back at least to Jonathan Swift, of truth-telling through satire. Doesn't Fish have a sense of humor? My goals, however, are utterly serious. I'm a leftist and a feminist and proud of it; I'm angered by a shoddy "scholarship" that claims to be left-wing but in fact, through its sophistry and obscurantism, undermines the prospects for progressive social critique. Like innumerable others from diverse backgrounds and disciplines, I call for the left to reclaim its Enlightenment roots. But let me now shut up: far better to give voice to the humanists and social scientists who have been flooding my e-mail for the past two weeks, expressing relief that the nakedness of their local emperors has finally been exposed. Let's hear their stories about the debate that is now opening up. Sincerely, Alan Sokal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:24:40 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Frank E. Durham" Subject: Re: From Sokal Dear S-a-C readers, Trying to bring a needed note of pedestrianism to the Sokal business, I posted yesterday a supposition that Prof. Sokal had miscontrued publication in Social Text to be _socially_ like publication in The Physical Review. Now Prof. Levitt posts a letter from Sokal with two passages that might seem to confirm some of my points. (">" is Sokal speaking, out of context and even out of sequence). 1) I said (in the list vernacular "FED said") that"[a physics] article implicates the community and not the author alone," whereas "outside the sciences an article might be ignored strategically" [for various reasons]. Admittedly the editors of Social Text are not merely readers, but they are certainly not members of Sokal's "mere" community. Sokal indicts them for publishing something that they claim not to believe--an offense in physics, almost always. Thus >Granted, not even the _Social Text_ editors would deny the existence of an external world, or claim that >"physical `reality' \ldots\ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct." The fact remains that they published >an article saying exactly this in its first two paragraphs. 2) In connection with the nonphysicist's freedom from responsibility to believe what other people publish, I wondered about "the natural fate of Sokal's article . . . had he not intervened" to draw attention to it. And here we have >Give me a break! >I have no objection whatsoever to sociology of science, which at its best can clarify the important political >and economic issues surrounding science and technology. My only objection is to _bad_ >sociology of science --- numerous examples of which are praised (!) in my parody article >in the spring/summer 1996 issue of _Social Text_. Best wishes to all, Frank Durham ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 17:57:28 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: From Sokal In-Reply-To: <199605242124.RAA18057@math.rutgers.edu> (fed@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU) Alan Sokal didn't "misconstrue" anything. He knew exactly who he was dealing with--namely, Ross, Aronowitz, and a couple of other schmos on "ST". There's no need to be highfalutin' about any of this. It was obvious that Ross was hot to bash a couple of jokers named Gross and Levitt (slight pause for boos) so Alan accommodated him with a few patches of bashing. It's also pretty clear that Aronowitz longs deperately to be taken seriously as a pundit on science, so Alan pretended to take him seriously, i.e., to put him in company with Lacan, Derrida, and Irigaray (what flattery!!!) The note acepting Alan's paper came back with remarkable swiftness (sigh!! I wish I could get my math papers acted on like that) and was signed by both Ross and Aronowitz (the Laurel and Hardy of cult-stud). It was full of flattery. Of course, Stanley is not being quite candid about this right now (I can just hear Ross muttering, "This is another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley!). Alan is being quite sincere when he says that he repeatedly asked for critique, comments, and suggestions. He wanted to give them every chance to smell a rat, so there couldn't be any excuses. Also, remember, Ross's office and Alan's are a couple of hundred feet away from each other!! Mark Nelkin, husband of another ST contributor, actually works in the same physics dept. as Alan. So any misgivings could easily have been checked out. The question isn't which version of "social constructionism" the ST editors are now willing to swear alliegience to; in the past, they've been pretty gung-ho. The point is that they accepted gibberish as constituting a meaningful essay because it contained a sufficient quota of catchphrases of the sort that typically go unchallenged, as well as making ideologically congenial noises. So, when is this pack of knaves and fools going to go out and find honest jobs? Not too soon, I imagine. N. Levitt PS: See the article on the Sokal Text affair in the new "In These Ti (by Tom Frank).mes" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 15:04:10 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Baber Zaheer Subject: Re: SaC: Re: Fish on Sokal In-Reply-To: <199605241216.UAA17403@sable.nus.sg> from "David Shein" at May 24, 96 07:53:35 am > > S. Gliboff writes: > "My hat is off to Stanley Fish for finding a way to construct credulous > simplicity as a virtue. I didn't think it could be done. The editors of > _Social Text_ indeed cannot be accused of harboring any "deep and > corrosive attitude of suspicion." They are helping to make academia a > kinder, gentler place." > The second > strain is what we might call the METHODOLOGICAL STRAIN. This one concerns the > manner in which the academics who tend to publidh in _ST_ write. It is an > obfuscatory manner which, Sokal thinks, focuses concern on language and > rhetoricand thereby leads academics to sidestep issues and concern themselves > with > language. I take Sokal's point to be as much a critique of this manner of > intellectual and academic dealing as it is as a critique of the content of the > dealings done by the academic left. Insofar as I am sympathetic to this line > of criticism, I tend to disagree with Gliboff- the editors of _ST_ are not > making academia a kinder and gentler place. They are rather obfuscating issues > and making academia a denser thinket than it already is. > > David Shein > CUNY Graduate Center and Lehman College > The issue of language, raised by Sokal and many others before him is absoutely essential. Unfortunately some scholars seem to condemn lucidity as "repressive" and revel in generating an incredible amount of jargon and neologisms at the drop of a hat. Of course, appeal to various constituencies (and jobs) are at stake. But the final result is that folks like Dinesh D'Souza are read by millions, while their critics can hardly claim to be understood by a handful of in-group sympathizers for whom such criticism is hardly news. Of course, some have even defended the use of jargon on the grounds that we are analyzing complex situations and therefore lucidity will mislead folks into believing that simple solutions are possible. It is hard to see how such reasoning can be justified. It is not clear what if anything the users of jargon laced work are attempting to achieve (except getting jobs of course) and it remains a mystery how on earth they can claim to be engaged in "emancipatory politics" and the like. Given the fact that it needs a tremendous amount of effort (and re-learning of new neologisms) for even hardened insiders to decipher the precise import of the latest buzzwords, claims engagement in "progressive politics" cannot be anything more than delusions of grandeur. The american sociologist C. Wright Mills' views, penned almost forty years ago, bear repetition to counteract the heady seductive appeal that trendy but vacuous buzzwords offer. Especially for those who are genuinely serious in their aim of contributing to a clearer understanding of the world (and science, technology and society). To quote Mills: "To write is to raise a claim for the attention of readers. That is part of any style. To write is also to claim for oneself at least status enough to be read. The young academic man is very much involved in both claims.....desire for status is one reason why academic men slip so readily into unintelligibilty. And that, in turn, is one reason why they do not have the status they desire. A truly vicious circle - but one out of which any scholar can easily break. To overcome the academic prose you have first to overcome the academic pose. It is much less important to study grammar than to clarify your own answers to these three questions. (1) How difficult and complex after all is my subject? (2) when I write, what status am I claiming for myself? (3) For whom am I trying to write? .....one answer has been suggested by my colleague, Lionel Trilling.... You are to assume that you have been asked to give a lecture on some subject you know well, before an audience of teachers and students from all departments of a leading university, as well as an assortment of interested people from a nearby city. Assume that such an audience is before you and that they have a right to know; assume that you want to let them know. Now write." C. Wright Mills, _The Sociological Imagination_ Sadly, while Dinesh D'Souza and company seem to be following Mills' advice, our self-proclaimed progressive academics, with few exceptions seem to have pursued a quite opposite approach with a vengeance. They assume that nobody has a right to know what is being discussed and even the cliques to which their writing is addressed, desire, indeed demand a minimum quota of neologisms and transmutation of quite regular words (eg. discourse, intervention, interrogation etc) into something special. The fact is that such obscurantist prose is amply rewarded in some quarters, so it is unlikely that the vicious cycle will be broken. The irony is that even Parsons, whom Mills criticized, would be shell-shocked to go over the unreadable, self-serving sludge that is being churned out by some sections of the cultural studies establishment. As far as consequences go, much of the work (with some exceptions) is no better than the robotic articles being dished out in the "professional" journals of specific disciplines (the American Sociological Review would be the prime example in my discipline). As indicated in the above post by David Shein, if nothing else, Alan Sokal's "intervention" serves to "problematise" and "interrogate" the reigning "totalising" "metanarrative" of a SPECIFIC perspective that has become "hegemonic" within the wider "discourse" of science studies. It is this aspect of the controversy that is not being directly addressed in the recent discussions of the issue. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 10:27:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Frank E. Durham" Subject: Re: From Sokal Dear S-a-Cers, At 05:57 PM 5/24/96 -0400, Norman Levtt wrote, in response to my post about modes of publication: >Alan Sokal didn't "misconstrue" anything. He knew exactly who he was >dealing with [etc.] _____ I don't know any of these people, so NL's story is persuasive. Is his the last word, then? I'll hang up now, for a long time, and listen as youall treat each other impolitely. Best wishes to all, Frank Durham ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:34:51 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: Sokal and anti-science David Shein wrote: I take Sokal's point to be as much a critique of this manner of > intellectual and academic dealing as it is as a critique of the content of the> dealings done by the academic left. Insofar as I am sympathetic to this line> of criticism, I tend to disagree with Gliboff- the editors of _ST_ are not> making academia a kinder and gentler place. They are rather obfuscating issues> and making academia a denser thinket than it already is. ... I know the NYTimes seems to do so, but please don't think that Social Text types represent "the left". If they are the most visible alleged leftish in academia, that is very sad. Sokal is a leftist and proud of it. One of the things that he and many others are protesting is the growing "hegemony" of obscurantism and vulgar anti-science _within_ the self-identified left at large. The point of marxian / science is to try to figure out what is _really_ going on and how things work. Now as imperfect as those efforts are, I hope they are more likely to have some success than the rejection of the very idea of having any standards of critical thought, evaluation and judgement at all. If anything can be "true for me", in a weirdly twisted over-extension of cultural relativism, then we have no basis for choosing one thing over another within our own culture. Hey, trickle-down voodoo economics is true for the rich! On what basis should we argue? All our "facts" are just social constructs anyway, no better or more true or accurate than any other version of the "facts." Where is there a role for any kind of engagement with reality outside our heads, data-gathering even? "Evidence"? This stuff upsets me partly because I think it is part of the general trend in obscurantism, including a lot of new-age stuff, channelling, psychics for hire, commodification of pseudo-tribal knowledges, etc. Where is critical thought being taught or valued? Don't we need some of that in order to fight any variety of mystification that is thrown at us? End of rant. Cheers, Lisa