Review of Sokal & Bricmonts' _FASHIONABLE NONSENSE_ ...

[William S. Lear]

On Sun, November 15, 1998 at 12:53:30 (-0800) Miles Jackson writes:
>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Jim heartfield wrote:
>> ...
>> 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?  ...

Not in the least.


>                                             ...  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, ...

First, they do not claim that they do not understand the argument that
the pomo theorist is making *with the misappropriated scientific
theories*, just that they are not experts in the writings of the
authors in question.

Second, their undertaking is perfectly respectable.  Imagine if some
nutcase were to take Max Sawicky's writings about profit rates and
earnings, and used it in an obscure racist tract, made bogus claims
about what Sawicky's writings concluded, and used it to shore up a
load of opaque nonsense.  If Sawicky were to condemn the appropriation
of his work by saying that the author did not understand it, Sawicky
would be under no obligation whatsoever to "understand" the rest of
the nonsense.  It would be enough to limit the critique to the
use/abuse of Sawicky's work.

Heartfield has this one right.

Bill