On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> >>Personally, I am more sympathetic to the political critics of science
> and tech., who make connections between S & T, capital, and political
> power. . . The folks doing this stuff
> today don't offer *as* incisive a critique--I can't think of any Marxists
> who do this stuff (as Marxists)
>
> Well, there's Richard Lewontin, still kicking, though no spring chicken. Dan
> Kevles, a Marxist historian of science, is still doing work. But the big push
> has faded.
Kevles new book on the Baltimore case got a great review in the current NYRB. Didn't sound like there was anything Marxist about it, though. And I totally neglected David (?) Noble, whose still putting stuff out. When I think Marxist critique of science, I think of the science for the people/radical science journal folks. The early 70s seemed to have all the really incisive science critique going on, and I spent those years getting toilet trained and learning the alphabet. Both worthy projects to be sure... Rose and Rose are still around...
> >>Again, he
> isn't taking on the serious science critics (unless he has a chpt. on
> Harding). Lacan and Irigaray might be important, but not in science
> studies. Does Sokal take on Longino, Fuller, Ihde, etc...? They (among
> others) are the folks doing the real work.
>
> Fuller's an idiot. Longino is not a science critic, any more than Alison
> Wylie,w hose name you leave off the list.
>
Why do you call Fuller an idiot? And Longino has published quite alot of
feminist philos. of science which is critical--we might have different
definitions of "science critic." My list was off the top of my
head--haven't read Wylie, though. Who is she?
> --jks (a recovering philosopher of science)
>
Frances (an aspiring philosopher of science)