>Still, Sokal and Bricmont's systematic demolition is totally convincing,
>at least to someone like me with a background in physics and mathematics.
Why doesn't that surprise me?
>And even critics of _Intellectual Impostures_ seem unprepared to
>defend the specific passages attacked, rather weakening general
>counter-accusations of a failure to understand the context or the
>use of metaphor and analogy. So we are forced to accept the fact that
>respected philosophers have been writing at length on subjects which they
>simply do not understand, with results ranging from ordinary confusion to
>outright gibberish. That must certainly be at least a little disturbing,
>but what are its broader implications?
And are we also forced to accept the fact that scientists - and rather obscure ones at that, until one became a media star because of a schoolboy prank - writing on subjects they simply do not understand isn't at least a little disturbing?
Doug