On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Jim heartfield wrote:
> In message <Pine.GSO.4.02.9811151227030.21811-100000 at CHUMA.CAS.usf.edu>,
> Frances Bolton (PHI) <fbolton at chuma.cas.usf.edu> writes
> > I have
> >not yet read the book-it's on order at my local library, but my
> >understanding from other people is that Sokal and Bricmont freely admit
> >they don't understand the work of Derrida, Lacan, & Irigaray (the objects
> >of attack), but they use their thoeretical work anyway.
>
> This is really unfair. It is a consequence of their principled
> scrupulousness that S&B insist that they are not experts on the
> sociological and cultural issues raised the works they address. They
> restrict their critique to the misunderstanding and misapplication of
> scientific theories within the works of these writers.
>
But isn't there a bit of a logical problem here? If they don't really understand the argument that the pomo theorist is making, how do they know if the argument is twisting scientific ideas? This critique requires a basic understanding of the pomo's arguments, and it appears that S & B have not been diligent and careful enough to do their homework. --In other words, they're doing exactly what they accuse the pomos of doing: writing about something they haven't carefully studied.
That said, I must agree with S & B's basic observation about the use of scientific terminology in Kristeva, Lacan, et al. As far as I can see, it's simply introduced to add a veneer of apparent respectibility and rigor to the ideas (Lacan's topology, for instance). And it is ironic to me that people who often question science would slavishly mimic scientific terms to make their argument look better to naive readers.
Miles Jackson cqmv at odin.cc.pdx.edu