Village Voice reviews Sokal-Bricmont

[Frances Bolton (PHI)]

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)