>> I'll hedge that
>> apology by noting that the context appears to be such classy
>> epistemological devices as "it seems fairly obvious".
>At this point I'd like to include by citation the whole of John Bellamy
>Foster's post on the origins of dogmatism. (Posted on Pen-l).
Don't subscribe to that one. Care to precis?
>One of
>the more obscurantist tricks of skeptics aiming at freezing action in
>interminable hasslings is precisely to force others into defending or
>explaining that which in fact "seems fairly obvious".
Since what "seemed fairly obvious" in your post was that " Lacan is neither [well read nor knowledgeable]", ie your entire point, I rather think it's possible to agree with this general principle while standing by my original jibe. I'm happy with people saying that things seem fairly obvious when they're talking about fairly obvious things; less so when "it seems fairly obvious" is used to write off an entire discipline which has hundreds of exponents to whom it doesn't seem obvious that they're wasting their time on a charlatan.
>I believe in an
>earlier post someone wanted to subsume under linguistic debate
>the question of light as "particle" or "wave."
This was one of mine, and that's not really what I meant. What I meant was that the linguistic practice of Newton and natural philosophers of that era in calling photons "particles" set off a whole wasted debate over whether light was made up of particles or waves. It is partly for this reason that physicists these days try to invent new terms for imperfectly understood phenomena.
>There was a serious debate (I believe on the old Spoons marxism
>list) of the role of science in the growth and defense of racism. There
>are almost certainly current scientific tendencies which call out
>loudly for similar ideological critique. One of the more sinister (no
>pun) features of the positions you seem to be upholding
Hey hang on. I'll sweep up my own pooch's crap, but nobody else's. The position I was upholding was that Sokal and Bricmont were way pompous in condemning the "fops" for "misuse of scientific language", because they were guilty of a huge double standard -- that scientists used language in distinctly similar ways, and that this did not stop science being valid. I've been pretty explicit about this, actually.
>is that
>this kind of silly haggling (the piddling around in the sceptical
>caressing of what is indeed obvious) seriously interferes with
>legitiamate and needed critiques of physical and biological sciences.
Again with this "obvious" thing! This might create the impression that my remark about "seems fairly obvious" was some sort of radical scepticism about "what was indeed obvious", rather than a cheap shot aimed at a blanket dismissal of a widely-held point of view..
>I was serious in doubting that you were debating in good faith.
>You still have not convinced me that you are.
>Carrol
Well I doubt this will convince you either.
dd
----------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________
_____
---------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
IMMEDIATELY on (44) 171 638 5858 and delete the message
from all locations in your computer. You should not copy
this email or use it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any person : to do so may be unlawful.
Email is an informal method of communication and is
subject to possible data corruption, either accidentally
or on purpose. Flemings is unable to exercise control
over the content of information contained in
transmissions made via the Internet. For these reasons
it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information
contained on email without obtaining written confirmation
of it.
----------------------------------------------------------